LAB  OR 

*» 


BY  JOHN  MITCHELL 


THIS  THAT  THEY  CALL  ORGANIZATION  OF 
IS  THE  UNIVERSAL  VITAL  PROBLEM  OF  THE 

CARLYLE 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


GIFT  OF 


Dr.   Ira  3.   Cross 


JOHN  MITCHELL 
President  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America 


ORGANIZED  LABOR 

ITS  PROBLEMS,   PURPOSES  AND   IDEALS 

AND 

THE   PRESENT  AND   FUTURE  OF  AMERICAN  WAGE 

EARNERS 


BY 
JOHN    MITCHELL 


AMERICAN   BOOK  AND   BIBLE   HOUSE 
PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 


COPYRIGHT,  1903 

BY 

JOHN    MITCHELL 


DUNLAP  PRINTING  Co. 

"332-34-36-38  CHERRY  STREET.  . 

PHILADELPHIA 


CONTENTS 


PREFACE ix 


CHAPTER'  1 
The  Philosophy  of  Trade  Unionism 


CHAPTER   II 
Labor  Unorganized I2 

CHAPTER  "III 
Trade  Unionism— a  Product  of  Modern  Industry ,  I7 

CHAPTER    IV 
The  Oppression  of   Labor  under  the  Factory  System 23 

CHAPTER   V 


British  Labor  in  Self-Defence 


CHAPTER    VI 
Modern  Trade  Unionism  in  Great  Britain 41 

CHAPTER    VII 
Labor  in  the  American  Colonies.    .  % - , 

CHAPTER    VIII 

Labor    from    the    Declaration    of    Independence    to    the    Emancipation 
Proclamation 

CHAPTER    IX 
'^    Organized  Labor  before  and  since  the  Civil  War (/, 

v, 

10  y>T^- 


iv  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   X 
The  Constitution  of  the  American  Trade  Union 75 

-CHAPTER   X! 
American  Trade  Unions  of  To-day 83 

CHAPTER   XII 
Organized  Labor  versus  Unorganized  Labor 93 

CHAPTER   XIII 
The  Benefit  Features  of  Trade  Unions 104 

CHAPTER    XIV 
The  American  Standard  of  Wages no 

CHAPTER   XV 
The  Day's  Work 120 

CHAPTER   XVI 
The  Work  of  Women  and  Children 131 

CHAPTER   XVII 
The  Death  Roll  of  Industry 142 

CHAPTER   XV11I 
The  Moral  Uplifting  of  the  Workman 153  \/ 

CHAPTER   XIX 

How  Trade  Unions  Benefit  Employer  and  Public 160 

CHAPTER   XX 

The  Problem  of  the  Unskilled 167  C 


CONTENTS.  V 

CHAPTER   XXI 

The  Immigrant  and  the  Living  Wage 176 

CHAPTER   XXII 
Organized  Labor  and  Organized  Capital 186 

CHAPTER    XXIII 
The  Union  and  the  Trust 195 

CHAPTER    XXIV 
Unions  and  Politics 205 

CHAPTER   XXV 

Trade  Unions,  the  State,  and  the  Law 215 

/ 
CHAPTER    XXVI 

The  Incorporation  of  Labor  Unions 222 

CHAPTER    XXVII 
The  Case  against  the  Trade  Union 233 

CHAPTER    XXVIII 
The  Right  to  the  Machine  246 

CHAPTER    XXIX 
The  Restriction  of  the  Output 254 

CHAPTER    XXX 
The  Passing  of  the  Apprentice 260 

CHAPTER    XXXI 
The  Boundaries  of  Trades  264 


vi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   XXXII 
The  Unionist  and  the  Non-Unionist 272 

CHAPTER   XXXIII 
The  Label  and  the  Boycott 286 

CHAPTER   XXXIV 
Labor  and  Capital  at  War 299 

CHAPTER   XXXV 
Strikes  in  their  Moral  and  Economic  Aspects 307 

CHAPTER  XXXVI 
The  Proper  Conduct  of  a  Strike 316 

CHAPTER   XXXVII 
The  Injunction  in  Labor  Disputes 324 

CHAPTER   XXXVIII 
The  Strike  versus  Compulsory  Arbitration 337 

CHAPTER   XXXIX 
The  Strike  versus  the  Trade  Agreement 347 

THE  COAL  STRIKE  OF  1902 : 

CHAPTER    XL 
The  Advent  of  the  Great  Railroad  Corporations 355 

CHAPTER    XLI 
The  Advent  of  the  United  Mineworkers  of  America 362 


CONTENTS.  vii 

CHAPTER   XLII 
The  Strike  Declared 368 

CHAPTER   XLIII 
The  Indianapolis  Convention 374 

CHAPTER   XLIV 
The  Intervention  of  the  President 379 

CHAPTER    XLV 
The  Award  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission 391 


CHAPTER    XLV1 
Labor  Federation  in  the  United  States 3Q7 

CHAPTER   XLV1I 
The  Work  before  the  Unions 407 

CHAPTER    XLVI1I 
The  Ideals  of  Organized  Labor 412        i/ 

CHAPTER   XLIX 
Organized  Labor  and  Public  Opinion 418 

CHAPTER    L 
Trade  Unionism  and  the  American  Democracy 4.:. 

CHAPTER    LI 
"The  Universal  Vital  Problem  of  the  World" 4>i 


In  the  compilation  of  data  and  in  the  preparation  of  "Organized  Labor, 
its  Problems,  Purposes  and  Ideals,"  I  have  been  assisted  by  Walter  E. 
Weyl,  Ph.  D.,  and  we  have  consulted,  among  many  others,  the  following 
authorities. 

Webb  (Sidney  and  Beatrice). 

Industrial  Democracy.     London,  New  York,  and  Bombay. 

Webb  (Sidney  and  Beatrice). 

The  History  of  Trade  Unionism.    London,  New  York,  and  Bombay. 

Stimson  (F.  J.). 

Handbook  to  the  Labor  Law  of  the  United  States.    New  York. 

Ely  (Richard  T.). 

The  Labor  Movement  in  America.    New  York. 

Engels  (Frederick). 

The   Condition   of  the  Working-Class  in   England  in    1844.     Translated  by 
Florence  Kelley  Wischnewetzky.    London. 

Wright  (Carroll  D.). 

The  Industrial  Evolution  of  the  United  States.    New  York. 

Walker  (Francis  A.). 

The  Wages  Question.     Boston. 

Howell  (George). 

The  Conflicts  of  Capital  and  Labour.    London  and  New  York. 

McMaster  (James  B.). 

History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States. 

Lloyd  (Henry  D.). 

A  Country  without  Strikes. 

Report  of  the  National  Conference  on  Industrial  Conciliation.    1902  and  1903. 
Report  of  the  United  States  Industrial  Commission.     Vols.  XVII  and  XIX. 


(Vfll) 


PREFACE 

THE  average  wage  earner  has  made  up  his  mind  that  he  must  remain! 
a  wage  earner.  He  has  given  up  the  hope  of  a  kingdom  to  come, 
where  he  himself  will  be  a  capitalist,  and  he  asks  that  the  reward  for  his 
work  be  given  to  him  as  a  working-man.  Singly,  he  has  been  too  weak  to 
enforce  his  just  demands  and  he  has  sought  strength  in  union  and  has 
associated  himself  into  labor  organizations. 

Labor  unions  are  for  the  workman,  but  against  no  one.  They  are  not 
hostile  to  employers,  not  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the  general  public. 
They  are  for  a  class,  because  that  class  exists  and  has  class  interests,  but 
the  unions  did  not  create  and  do  not  perpetuate  the  class  or  its  interests  and 
do  not  seek  to  evoke  a  class  conflict. 

There  is  no  necessary  hostility  between  labor  and  capital.  Neither 
can  do  without  the  other  ;  each  has  evolved  from  the  other.  Capital  is  labor 
saved  and  materialized;  the  power  to  labor  is  in  itself  a  form  of  capital. 
There  is  not  even  a  necessary,  fundamental  antagonism  between  the  laborer 
and  the  capitalist.  Both  are  men,  with  the  virtues  and  vices  of  men,  and 
each  wishes  at  times  more  than  his  fair  share.  Yet,  broadly  considered, 
the  interest  of  the  one  is  the  interest  of  the  other,  and  the  prosperity  of  the 
one  is  the  prosperity  of  the  other.  Where  wages  arc  high,  capital  and  the 
conduct  of  business  are  not  without  their  reward;  where  the  industry  of  the 
country  is  carried  on  by  broad-minded,  far-seeing,  adventurous  leaders,  the 
remuneration  of  labor  increases,  even  to  the  common  lalx>rcr  on  the  streets. 

The  trade  unions  stand  for  the  principle  of  united  action  and  for  the 
policy  of  a  living  wage  earned  under  fair  living  conditions.  In  union  there 
is  strength,  justice,  and  moderation ;  in  disunion,  nothing  but  an  alternating 
humility  and  insolence,  a  state  of  industrial  dcsjxrtism  tempered  by  futile 
and  pasaing  revolutions.  Unions  stand  for  die  right  of  association,  seJf- 

(ix; 


X  PREFACE 

government,  and  free  speech,  for  the  dignity  and  self-respect  of  the  work- 
man, for  the  mutual  esteem  of  capitalist  and  wage  earner,  and  for  a  wide, 
far-seeing,  open-minded,  democratic  conduct  of  industry.  The  living  wage 
means  the  American  standard  of  living.  The  world  does  not  owe  a  man 
a  living,  but  the  man  owes  it  to  himself,  and  the  industry  that  voluntarily 
employs  and  voluntarily  retains  him  owes  him  the  right  to  earn  it  under 
fair  and  living  conditions. 

In  the  pursuit  of  these  ideals  trade  unionism  has  justified  its  existence 
by  good  works  and  high  purposes.  At  one  time  viewed  with  suspicion  by 
workman  and  employer  alike,  it  has  gained  the  affections  of  the  one  and 
the  enlightened  esteem  of  the  other.  Slowly  and  gradually  it  has  progressed 
toward  the  fulfilment  of  its  ideals.  It  has  elevated  the  standard  of  living 
of  the  American  workman  and  conferred  upon  him  higher  wages  and  more 
leisure.  It  has  increased  efficiency,  diminished  accidents,  averted  disease, 
kept  the  children  at  school,  raised  the  moral  tone  of  the  factories,  and  im- 
proved the  relations  between  employer  and  employed.  In  so  doing,  it  has 
stood  upon  the  broad  ground  of  justice  and  humanity.  It  has  defended 
the  weak  against  the  strong,  the  exploited  against  the  exploiter.  It  has 
stood  for  efficiency  rather  than  cheapness,  for  the  producer  rather  than 
production,  for  the  man  rather  than  the  dollar.  It  has  voiced  the  claims 
of  the  unborn  as  of  the  living  and  has  stayed  the  hand  of  that  ruthless, 
near-sighted  profit-seeking  which  would  destroy  future  generations  as  men 
wantonly  cut  down  forests.  It  has  spoken  for  the  negro  slave  on  the  planta- 
tion and  the  white  slave  in  the  factory.  It  has  aided  and  educated  the  newly 
arrived  immigrant,  protected  the  toil  of  women  and  children,  and  fought 
the  battle  of  the  poor  in  attic  and  sweat  shop.  It  has  conferred  benefits, 
made  sacrifices,  and,  unfortunately,  committed  errors. 

I  do  not  conceal  from  myself  that  trade  unionism  has  made  its  mis- 
takes. No  institution  fully  attains  its  ideals,  and  men  stumble  and  fall  in 
their  upward  striving.  The  labor  union  is  a  great,  beneficent,  democratic 
institution,  not  all-good,  not  all-wise,  not  all-powerful,  but  with  the  gener- 
ous virtues  and  enthusiastic  faults  of  youth.  Labor  leaders  have  erred,  but 


PREFACE  xi 

the  underlying  impulse  has  been  good,  and  the  unions  have  sought  the  wel- 
fare of  their  class  and  of  society. 

I  have  mentioned  these  faults  and  errors  of  American  trade  unions, 
because  I  believe  that  they  should  not  be  glossed  over  by  the  men  who  love 
the  unions  in  spite  of  their  faults.  I  believe,  however,  that  many  employers 
have  been  less  than  just  and  have  closed  their  eyes  to  the  virtues  of  unions 
while  searching  for  flaws  with  a  microscope.  Capital  should  be  as  tolerant 
and  fair  to  labor  as  labor  is  to  capital,  and  the  employer  should  cease  to 
consider  unions  and  their  policy  beneath  his  notice  and  should  begin  to  study 
them  in  a  frank,  open-minded  manner.  What  is  required  between  these 
two  factors  in  production  are  knowledge  and  mutual  understanding.  Ignor- 
ance is  the  mother  of  prejudice  and  strife,  and  peace  may  come  only  from 
an  understanding  of  the  attitude  of  an  opponent.  The  labor  problem  cannot 
be  solved  by  the  benevolence  of  employers,  but  only  by  their  justice  anil 
wisdom,  not  by  gifts  or  donations,  not  by  allotments  or  sales  of  stocks,  not 
even  by  profit-sharing.  However  beneficent  these  may  be,  the  problem  can 
be  solved  only  by  a  recognition  of  the  rights  of  labor  and  a  willingness  on 
the  part  of  employers  to  confer  with  their  associated  workmen  and  to 
formulate  trade  agreements  covering  the  whole  field  of  the  labor  contract. 

The  recognition  of  the  rights  of  organized  labor  by  the  making  of  trade 
agreements  will  with  the  coming  years  become  more  and  more  general  in 
the  United  States.  The  American  employer  is  too  broad-minded  not  to 
realize  the  advantage  of  such  a  method  of  securing  stable  conditions  and  of 
ensuring  a  spirit  of  friendly  cooperation  among  his  men.  The  manufac- 
turer of  the  future  will  no  more  forego  such  an  insurance  of  the  good  will 
of  his  workmen  than  he  will  permit  his  factory  to  remain  uninsured  against 
fire.  The  trade  agreement  makes  for  jK-ace  in  the  industrial  world.  Strikes 
will  not  entirely  disappear,  and  the  fear  or  possibility  of  strikes  will  still 
remain,  but  the  frequent  bickerings  and  constant  irritation  will  vanish,  and 
strikes  themselves  will  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  T<>  tin-  present  ]>eri<xl  of 
industrial  war  will  succeed  an  era  of  peace,  an  era  of  peace  with  honor  to 
both  sides. 


xii  PREFACE 

The  recognition  of  the  rights  of  organized  labor  should  be  to  the  em- 
ploying class  as  much  a  principle  as  a  policy.  It  is  a  recognition  of  th« 
dignity  of  labor,  of  the  equal  rights  of  men  engaged  in  manual  toil.  It  is 
a  second  emancipation,  freeing  both  master  and  slave.  Former  slave  owners 
found  it  difficult  to  treat  with  freedmen,  and  it  is  no  less  difficult  to  men 
accustomed  "to  run  their  own  business  in  their  own  way"  to  enter  into  con- 
tractual relations  with  representatives  of  employees  associated  into  organiza- 
tions of  national  scope  and  purpose.  Such  a  broad  recognition,  however, 
binding,  as  it  does,  in  indissoluble  bonds  of  amity,  employer  and  employee, 
would  like  mercy  bless  him  who  gives  and  him  who  takes,  conferring  a 
lasting  benefit  upon  workingmen,  employers,  and  the  whole  people  of  the 
United  States. 

I  have  written  this  book  in  the  hope  of  contributing,  though  in  the 
slightest  degree,  to  the  attainment  of  this  result.  I  wish  to  see  the  interests 
and  ideals  of  labor  and  capital  fairly  reconciled,  not  by  surrender,  but  by 
mutual  understanding,  and  to  see  the  rights  and  responsibilities  of  all 
parties,  the  workman,  the  employer,  and  the  public,  clearly,  completely,  and 
unmistakably  recognized.  To  the  better  comprehension  of  these  rights  and 
responsibilities,  whether  of  labor  or  of  capital,  and  to  a  better  understanding 
between  these  two  great  factors  in  production,  I  dedicate  this  book. 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  TRADE  UNIONISM 

Apparent  Complexity  of  Trade  Unionism.  Underlying  Simplicity.  The  Funda- 
mental Principle.  The  Right  to  Bargain  Collectively.  Its  Importance.  Its  Necessity. 
A  Minimum  of  Wages  and  Conditions  of  Labor  for  all  Workers.  Why  Trade  Unions 
are  Opposed  to  Truck  Stores.  Arbitrary  Fines,  etc.  Trade  Unions  Stand  for  Free- 
dom of  Contract.  The  Recognition  of  the  Union.  The  Denial  of  Representation  is 
Tyranny. 

TO  the  ordinary  man  of  affairs,  immersed  in  his  business  and  the  daily 
routine  of  life,  trade  unionism  may  seem  a  bewildering  maze  of  con- 
flicting ideas  and  doctrines.  Such  a  man,  unless  he  has  a  special  interest  in 
the  subject,  is  liable  to  have  his  opinions  formed  from  disjointed,  scattering, 
and  often  untrustworthy  accounts.  At  one  time  he  reads  of  trade  unionists 
attempting  to  raise  wages  or  reduce  hours  of  labor  in  a  particular  factory, 
or  demanding  the  recognition  of  the  union,  or  urging  a  sympathetic  strike, 
or  resisting  or  denouncing  a  federal  injunction.  At  other  times  the  trade 
union  seems  to  be  taken  up  with  such  questions  as  whether  the  foreman  shall 
or  shall  not  belong  to  the  union,  whether  the  unionists  shall  or  shall  not 
work  with  non-union  men,  whether  a  particular  factory  is  in  a  sanitary  con- 
dition, whether  a  certain  machine  is  speeded  up  too  much  or  not  enough, 
whether  the  temperature  of  a  given  factory  is  such  as  to  endanger  the  health 
of  the  operatives,  what  differential  should  l)e  paid  for  a  new  machine,  and 
so  on.  At  still  other  times,  he  reads  of  unionists  leaving  their  uncompleted 
work  at  the  stroke  of  the  hour,  demanding  the  abolition  oi  truck  stores,  in- 
sisting upon  the  weighing  or  measurement  of  their  product,  refusing  to  work 
on  goods  made  by  non-unionists,  or  boycotting  certain  individuals  or  pro- 
ducts. In  some  instances  the  unionists  seem  to  be  insisting  upon  pay  by  the 
piece,  and  in  other  cases,  refusing  absolutely  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the 
piece  system.  At  one  time  the  unionists  appear  to  be  at  war  with  one 


2  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

another  or  with  employers,  and  at  other  times  they  are  meeting  amicably 
in  gigantic  federations,  or  legislating  in  conjunction  with  associations  of 
employers  for  the  conduct  and  management  of  great  industries. 

In  the  hundreds  of  trade  unions  that  exist  and  the  thousands  of  local 
groups  into  which  these  organizations  are  divided,  various  problems  are 
encountered  and  various  measures  taken  in  each  exigency.  The  result  is  a 
perfectly  bewildering  series  of  rules  and  regulations,  in  which  the  ordinary 
man  sees  neither  rhyme  nor  reason,  except,  perhaps,  that  he  observes  in 
vague  outline  the  ever-present  desire  on  the  part  of  the  workingmen  to  im- 
prove their  conditions  and  to  raise  their  standard  of  life  and  labor.  But 
even  when  the  general  public  clearly  understands  this  ideal,  it  fails  to  see 
why  so  simple  an  ideal  requires  so  many  and  so  elaborate  regulations,  and 
in  many  cases,  though  the  good  motives  of  trade  unions  are  not  impugned, 
their  wisdom  is  questioned. 

The  complexity  of  trade  unionism,  however,  is  merely  the  complexity 
of  human  life  itself.  No  matter  how  simple  and  fundamental  the  principles 
and  constitution  of  an  organization,  its  rules  and  regulations  necessarily  be- 
come complex  as  soon  as  they  encounter  the  diverse  conditions  that  charac- 
terize modern  life.  Law  in  its  simplest  form  stands  for  a  certain  rough 
ideal  of  justice'and  for  the  maintenance  under  certain  conditions  of  the  life, 
liberty,  and  property  of  the  individual.  While,  however,  in  primitive  times 
the  law  is  simple,  direct,  and  easily  recognizable,  the  cases  being  decided 
with  the  rough-handed  justice  of  the  monarch  dividing  the  infant,  the  intri- 
cate complexity  of  modern  life  renders  it  necessary  to  decide  even  the  sim- 
plest cases  by  reference  to  hundreds  of  precedents.  The  commandment, 
"Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  contains  a  commentary  running  through  hundreds 
of  thousands  or  even  millions  of  accounts  of  cases  of  men  who  have  been 
tried  and  acquitted  or  convicted.  Even  a  simple  contract  involves  the  most 
elaborate  series  of  conditions,  expressed  or  implied,  in  order  to  guard  the 
interests  of  both  parties. 

In  its  fundamental  principle  trade  unionism  is  plain  and  clear  and  sim- 
ple. Trade  unionism  starts  from  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  under 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  3 

normal  conditions  the  individual,  unorganized  workman  cannot  bargain 
advantageously  with  the  employer  for  the  sale  of  his  labor.  Since  the  work- 
ingman  has  no  money  in  reserve  and  must  sell  his  labor  immediately,  since, 
moreover,  he  has  no  knowledge  of  the  market  and  no  skill  in  bargaining, 
since,  finally,  he  has  only  his  own  labor  to  sell,  while  the  employer  engages 
hundreds  or  thousands  of  men  and  can  easily  do  without  the  services  of  any 
particular  individual,  the  workingman,  if  bargaining  on  his  own  account 
and  for  himself  alone,  is  at  an  enormous  disadvantage.  Trade  unionism  rec- 
ognizes the  fact  that  under  such  conditions  labor  becomes  more  and  more 
degenerate,  because  the  labor  which  the  workman  sells  is,  unlike  other  com- 
modities, a  thing  which  is  of  his  very  life  and  soul  and  being.  In  the  indi- 
vidual contract  between  a  rich  employer  and  a  poor  workman,  the  laborer 
will  secure  the  worst  of  it;  he  is  progressively  debased,  because  of  wages 
insufficient  to  buy  nourishing  food,  because  of  hours  of  labor  too  long  to 
permit  sufficient  rest,  because  of  conditions  of  work  destructive  of  moral, 
mental,  and  physical  health,  and  degrading  and  annihilating  to  the  laboring 
classes  of  the  present  and  the  future,  and,  finally,  because  of  danger  from 
accident  and  disease,  which  kill  off  the  workingman  or  prematurely  age 
him.  The  "individual  bargain,"  or  individual  contract,  between  employers 
and  men  means  that  the  condition  of  the  worst  and  lowest  man  in  the  in- 
dustry will  be  that  which  the  best  man  must  accept.  From  first  to  last, 
from  beginning  to  end,  always  and  everywhere,  trade  unionism  stands  un- 
alterably opposed  to  the  individual  contract.  There  can  re  no  concession 
or  yielding  upon  this  point.  No  momentary  advantage,  however  great  or 
however  ardently  desired,  no  advance  in  wages,  no  reduction  in  hours,  no 
betterment  in  conditions,  will  permanently  compensate  workingmen  for  even 
a  temporary  surrender  in  any  part  of  this  fundamental  principle.  It  is  this 
principle,  the  absolute  and  complete  prohibition  of  contracts  between  em- 
ployers and  individual  men,  upon  which  trade  unionism  is  founded.  There 
can  be  no  permanent  prosperity  to  the  working  classes,  no  real  and  lasting 
progrcrs,  no  consecutive  improvement  in  condition.-.,  until  the  principle  is 
firmly  and  fully  established,  that  in  industrial  life,  especially  in  enterprises 


4  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

on  a  large  scale,  the  settlement  of  wages,  hours  of  labor,  and  all  conditions 
of  work,  must  be  made  between  employers  and  workingmen  collectively  and 
not  between  employers  and  workingmen  individually. 

To  find  a  substitute  for  the  individual  bargain,  which  destroys  the  wel- 
fare and  the  happiness  of  the  whole  working  class,  trade  unions  were 
founded.  A  trade  union,  in  its  usual  form,  is  an  association  of  workmen 
who  have  agreed  among  themselves  not  to  bargain  individually  with  their 
employer  or  employers,  but  to  agree  to  the  terms  of  a  collective  or  joint  con- 
tract between  the  employer  and  the  union.  The  fundamental  reason  for 
the  existence  of  the  trade  union  is  that  by  it  and  through  it,  workmen  are 
enabled  to  deal  collectively  with  their  employers.  The  difference  between 
the  individual  and  the  collective  or  joint  bargain  is  simply  this,  that  in  the 
individual  contract  or  bargain  one  man  of  a  hundred  refuses  to  accept  work, 
and  the  employer  retains  the  services  of  ninety  and  nine ;  whereas  in  the  col- 
lective bargain  the  hundred  employees  act  in  a  body,  and  the  employer  re- 
tains or  discharges  all  simultaneously  and  upon  the  same  terms.  The  ideal 
of  trade  unionism  is  to  combine  in  one  organization  all  the  men  employed, 
or  capable  of  being  employed,  at  a  given  trade,  and  to  demand  and  secure  for 
each  and  all  of  them  a  definite  minimum  standard  of  wages,  hours,  and  con- 
ditions of  work. ' 

Trade  unionism  thus  recognizes  that  the  destruction  of  the  working- 
man  is  the  individual  bargain,  and  the  salvation  of  the  workingman  is  the 
joint,  united,  or  collective  bargain.  To  carry  out  a  joint  bargain,  how- 
ever, it  is  necessary  to  establish  a  minimum  of  wages  and  conditions  wrhich 
will  apply  to  all.  By  this  is  not  meant  that  the  wages  of  all  shall  be  the 
same,  but  merely  that  equal  pay  shall  be  given  for  equal  work.  There  can- 
not be  more  than  one  minimum  in  a  given  trade,  in  a  given  place,  at  a  given 
time.  If  the  bricklayers  of  the  city  of  New  York  were  all  organized  and 
the  union  permitted  half  of  its  members  to  work  for  forty  cents  an  hour, 
while  the  other  half,  in  no  wise  better  workmen,  were  compelled  or  led  to 
ask  for  fifty  cents,  the  result  would  be  that  the  men  receiving  fifty  cents 
would  be  obliged  either  to  lower  their  wages  or  get  out  of  the  trade.  To 


S  \\iri-.I.    (  ioMI'KKs, 
President  of  the  American  l-Ydrr.iimn  of   l.nl.ot. 


JAMES  DUNCAN 

Secretary  of  the  Granite  Cutters'  National  Union  ;  First  Vice- President  of  the  American 

Federation  of  Labor 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  5 

secure  to  any  union  man  fifty  cents  an  hour,  all  union  men  of  equal  skill  must 
demand  at  least  an  equal  sum.  The  man  who  wants  fifty  cents  an  hour  is 
not  injured  by  other  unionists  asking  or  getting  ten  or  twenty  cents  in  ex- 
cess of  this  minimum,  but  he  is  injured  by  fellow-craftsmen  accepting  any 
wage  less  than  the  minimum.  The  same  rule  of  collective  bargaining  applies 
to  the  hours  of  labor.  If  all  union  bricklayers  in  New  York  City  were  to 
receive  four  dollars  a  day  and  some  were,  for  this  pay,  to  work  eight  hours, 
others  ten,  and  still  others  twelve  and  fifteen  hours,  the  result  would  be  that 
the  employers  would  by  preference  employ  the  men  who  were  willing  to 
work  fifteen  hours.  As  a  consequence,  the  men  willing  to  work  only  eight 
or  ten  hours  would  lose  their  positions  or  be  obliged  either  to  reduce  their 
wages  or  to  work  as  long  as  their  competitors,  who  were  employed 
for  twelve  or  fifteen  hours.  What  is  true  of  wages  and  of  hours  of  labor 
is  equally  true  of  all  the  conditions  of  work.  If  some  members  of  the  union 
were  allowed  to  work  with  machinery  unguarded,  whereas  others  insisted 
upon  its  protection;  if  some  were  to  work  in  any  sort  of  a  factory,  under 
any  sort  of  conditions,  with  any  sort  of  a  foreman  or  master,  while  others 
insisted  upon  proper  surroundings ;  if  some  were  willing  to  be  so  over- rushed 
as  to  do  more  than  a  fair  day's  work  for  a  fair  day's  wage,  or  would  allow 
themselves  to  be  forced  into  patronizing  truck  stores,  to  submit  to  arbitrary 
fines  and  unreasonable  deductions,  whereas  others  would  rebel  at  these  im- 
positions, it  would  result  that  in  the  competition  among  the  men  to  retain 
their  positions,  those  who  were  most  pliant  and  lowest  spirited  would  secure 
the  work,  and  the  wages,  hours  of  labor,  and  conditions  of  employment 
would  be  those  set  or  accepted  by  the  poorest,  most  cringing,  and  least  inde- 
pendent of  workers.  If  the  trade  union  did  not  insist  upon  enforcing  com- 
mon rules  providing  for  equal  pay  for  equr.l  work  and  definite  conditions  of 
safety  and  health  for  all  workers  in  the  trade,  the  result  would  be  that  all 
pretense  of  a  joint  bargain  would  disappear,  and  the  employers  would  be 
free  constantly  to  make  individual  contracts  with  the  various  members  of 
the  union.  The  trade  union  does  not  stand  for  equal  earnings  of  all  work- 
men. It  does  not  object  to  one  man's  earning  twice  as  much  as  the  man 


6  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

working  by  his  side,  provided  both  men  have  equal  rates  of  pay,  equal  hours 
•f  work,  equal  opportunities  of  securing  work,  and  equal  conditions  of  em- 
ployment. The  union  does  not  object  to  an  employer's  rewarding  especially 
efficient  workers,  or  even  favored  workers,  by  paying  them  more  than  the 
union  scale,  or  granting  them  shorter  hours  than  provided  for  by  the  joint 
agreement.  What  the  union  does  stand  for  is  merely  equal  rates  of  pay — 
equal  pay  for  equal  work ;  and  while  it  will  allow  a  man  to  receive  twice  as 
much  as  his  fellow-craftsmen,  it  will  not  permit  him  to  do  so  by  underbid- 
ding them  in  wages  or  by  wrorking  under  less  favorable  conditions  or  for 
longer  hours.  Neither  does  the  union  oppose  competition  among  unionists 
for  positions,  although  it  demands  that  this  competition  be  solely  upon  the 
basis  of  efficiency  and  not  upon  that  of  reduced  wages,  lengthened  hours, 
or  any  abatement  from  the  conditions  fixed  by  the  collective  bargain. 

This  principle  of  trade  unionism  will  explain  many  of  the  seeming 
peculiarities  and  many  of  the  numerous  rules  of  labor  organizations.  It 
will  supply  an  answer  to  the  question  so  naively  put  by  many  people,  as  to 
why  the  union  will  not  allow  a  man  to  accept  two  dollars  a  day,  while  all 
other  workers  in  that  trade  are  receiving  three  dollars,  or  to  accept  forty 
cents  for  mining  a  ton  of  coal,  when  the  minimum  scale  is  fifty-six  cents. 
"Why,"  it  is'  inquired,  "should  not  a  man  be  allowed  to  accept  a  reduction 
of  wages  if  he  wish?  Why  should  a  man  be  compelled  to  take  more  wages 
than  he  wants?"  The  answer  of  the  unions  is  that  as  a  result  of  such 
individual  bargains,  the  employer  would  give  all  the  work  to  the  men  who 
were  satisfied  with  two  dollars  a  day,  and,  consequently,  the  men  who  de- 
manded three  dollars  would  be  thrown  out  of  employment,  and  there- 
fore forced  to  accept  a  lower  rate  of  remuneration.  It  is  this  necessity  of 
equal  pay  for  equal  work  that  compels  trade  unions  to  say  to  the  employer : 
''Either  you  shall  pay  three  dollars  to  the  man  who  only  asks  for  two,  or  we 
will  not  work  for  you.  We  recognize  your  right  to  employ  or  not  to  em- 
ploy whomsoever  you  wish,  but  either  you  must  pay  at  least  three  dollars, 
or  else  all  the  members  of  our  union  will  refuse  to  work  for  you." 

This  necessity  of  defending  the  collective  bargain,  or  contract,  explains 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  7 

many  features  of  trade  union  policy.  If  the  union  is  to  maintain  its  stand- 
ard of  wages  by  collective  bargaining,  it  must  prevent  the  employer,  by  indi- 
vidual bargains  with  individual  workmen,  from  making  deductions  from 
wages  and  thus  breaking  down  the  minimum  wage  agreed  upon  between  the 
union  and  the  employer.  If  trade  unions  are  to  tolerate  truck  stores,  not 
only  will  unfair  and  extortionate  prices  be  charged,  but  individual  men  de- 
siring the  favor  of  the  employer  will  compete  for  their  jobs  by  purchasing 
more  and  more  goods  in  the  company  store.  Instead  of  offering  to  work 
for  two  dollars  a  day  when  the  standard  rate  is  three,  a  man  may  simply 
take  for  his  work  an  order  on  the  store,  which,  though  nominally  worth 
three,  will  actually  be  worth  two  dollars.  It  is  well  known  that  com- 
panies operating  truck  stores  for  profit  in  connection  with  their  factories, 
invariably  give  the  preference  in  the  matter  of  jobs  to  men  who  best  patron- 
ize the  stores,  with  the  result  that  competition  for  jobs  among  workmen 
becomes  as  severe  as  ever,  and  the  consequent  undercutting  or  underbidding 
takes  the  vicious  form  of  spending  as  much  as  possible  at  the  company  store. 
The  toleration  of  the  company  store  may  thus  come  to  mean  a  series  of 
individual  agreements,  real  but  not  expressed,  by  which  individual  work- 
ingmen  permit  themselves  to  suffer  deductions  from  their  real  wages  in  the 
form  of  profits  on  the  goods  which  they  are  obliged  to  buy. 

The  prohibition  by  unions  of  arbitrary  fines  and  docking  is  due  to  this 
same  desire  to  maintain  a  common  minimum  standard  of  wages  and  condi- 
tions. Apart  from  the  direct  evil  and  oppression  that  result  from  the  un- 
limited powers  of  employers  arbitrarily  to  levy  fines  or  make  deductions  from 
wages,  there  is  the  added  danger  that,  by  this  means,  the  employers  will 
break  down  the  collective  bargain  and  substitute  fur  it  a  scries  of  individual 
bargains.  If  the  trade  unions  secure  from  the  employer  a  minimum  daily 
three-dollar  wage,  the  effect  of  this  common  action  will  be  nullified  and  de- 
stroyed if  some  individual  workmen  submit  in  any  form  to  an  average  de- 
duction of  ten  cents  a  day,  whether  for  fines  or  diking,  others  to  a  deduc- 
tion of  twenty  cents,  and  others  to  one  of  fifty  cents  or  a  dollar  a  day.  The 
union  is  not  opposed  to  a  deduction  from  wages  in  case  of  proved  ne^li^ence 


8  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

or  poor  workmanship;  but  as  these  fines  and  this  docking  affect  the  union 
wage,  they  should  be  jointly  determined  upon  by  the  employer  and  union, 
and  not  by  the  employer  alone,  nor  between  the  employer  and  the  individual 
workman.  If  the  individual  employee  is  permitted  to  make  any  rebate  or 
allow  any  deduction  whatsoever,  under  whatever  guise,  from  the  wages 
fixed  as  a  minimum  by  the  union,  then  the  whole  principle  of  a  union  scale 
of  wages  will  fall  to  the  ground. 

The  necessity  of  maintaining  the  collective,  rather  than  the  individual, 
bargain  explains  why  the  trade  union  is  sometimes  opposed  to  the  piece 
system  and  sometimes  not.  When  the  piece  price  can  be  regulated  collec- 
tively, as  in  bituminous  coal  mining,  the  unions  are  not  antagonistic  to,  but 
actually  in  favor  of,  this  system.  Where,  however,  each  separate  job  differs 
and  a  price  must  be  put  upon  it  separately,  payment  by  the  piece  degenerates 
into  a  system  of  underbidding  and  undercutting  and  to  the  resurrection  of 
individual  bargaining  in  one  of  its  worst  forms.  Where  the  price  cannot  be 
fixed  collectively  and  where  time  wages  cannot  be  paid,  the  union  has  solved 
the  problem,  at  least  partially,  by  having  the  shop  foreman,  a  representative 
of  all  the  men  in  the  establishment,  fix  the  price  of  the  work  in  concert  with 
the  employer  or  foreman. 

Like  the  wage  scale,  the  length  of  the  working  day,  as  determined  by 
the  union  and  employers,  must  be  protected  from  changes  made  by  indi- 
vidual workmen.  The  individual  workman  cannot  be  allowed  to  work 
longer  hours  than  the  union  prescribes  as  a  maximum,  or  to  work  more  over- 
time, or  at  different  times,  or  for  less  compensation  than  is  fixed  by  the  col- 
lective bargain.  If  the  individual  workman  is  to  decide  for  himself  how 
much  overtime  he  will  work,  and  at  what  rate  of  compensation,  he  can  just 
as  surely  underbid  other  workmen  as  by  accepting  a  lower  wage  at  the  start. 

There  is  hardly  an  action  taken  by  the  trade  unions,  hardly  a  demand 
made,  which  does  not  either  immediately  or  ultimately,  directly  or  indirectly, 
involve  this  principle.  Whether  the  union  demand  a  higher  standard  of 
hcalthfulness,  comfort,  or  decency  in  the  factories,  or  a  greater  degree  of 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  9 

protection  from  machinery,  or  any  other  concession  ministering  to  the  health 
or  safety  of  the  employee,  the  demand  is  always  in  the  form  of  a  certain 
minimum  for  all  workers.  The  union  does  not  prohibit  a  man  from  being 
paid  more  wages  for  less  hours  than  his  fellows,  but  it  does  claim  that  no 
man  shall  work  in  union  shops  for  less  than  a  certain  rate,  for  more  than  a 
certain  number  of  hours,  for  more  than  so  and  so  much  overtime,  or  at  a 
lower  rate  for  overtime,  or  with  less  than  a  given  amount  of  protection  to 
his  health,  comfort,  safety,  and  well-being.  The  employer  may,  if  he  wish, 
make  special  provision  for  the  health  of  a  favorite  workman,  just  as  he  may 
pay  above  the  union  rate  or  allow  an  employee,  in  return  for  the  minimum 
wage,  to  work  less  than  the  maximum  number  of  working  hours  prescribed 
by  the  union.  What  the  union  insists  upon,  however,  is  that  certain  mini- 
mum requirements  be  fulfilled  for  the  health,  comfort,  and  safety  of  all,  in 
order  that  the  workingmen  shall  not  be  obliged  to  compete  for  jobs  by  sur- 
rendering their  claims  to  a  reasonable  amount  of  protection  for  their  health, 
and  for  their  life  and  limb. 

The  trade  union  thus  stands  for  the  freedom  of  contract  on  the  part 
of  workingmen — the  freedom  or  right  to  contract  collectively.  The  trade 
union  also  stands  for  definiteness  of  the  labor  contract.  The  relation  be- 
tween employer  and  employee  is  complex  in  its  nature,  even  though  it  appear 
simple.  The  workingman  agrees  to  work  at  the  wage  offered  to  him  by  the 
employer,  at,  say,  fifteen  dollars  a  week,  but  frequently  nothing  is  said  as 
to  hours  of  labor,  pauses  for  meals  and  rest,  intensity  of  work,  conditions 
of  the  workshop,  protection  of  the  workman  against  filthy  surroundings 
or  unguarded  machinery,  character  of  his  fellow-workmen,  liability  of  the 
employer  for  accident,  nor  any  of  the  thousand  conditions  which  affect 
the  welfare  of  the  workman  and  the  gain  of  l>oth  employer  and  employee. 
There  has  always  l>cen  a  general  tacit  understanding  between  employers  and 
employees  that  these  conditions  shall  roughly  conform  to  the  usual  and  or- 
dinary custom  of  the  trade,  but  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement  with  the 
union,  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  employer  to  make  such  rules  absolutely,  or 
to  change  or  amend  them  at  such  time  as  he  thinks  proper.  Like  the  rail- 


10  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

road  timetables,  the  individual  contract  reads,  "Subject  to  change  without 
notice." 

The  recognition  of  the  union  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  principle  for  which  trade  unionism  stands,  the  right  to  bargain 
collectively  and  to  insist  upon  a  common  standard  as  a  minimum.  Work- 
ingmen  have  a  nominal,  but  not  a  real  freedom  of  contract,  if  they  are  pre- 
vented from  contracting  collectively  instead  of  individually.  The  welfare 
of  the  working  classes,  as  of  society,  depends  upon  the  recognition  of  this 
principle  of  the  right  of  employees  to  contract  collectively.  An  employer, 
be  he  ever  so  well-meaning,  stands  in  the  way  of  future  progress  if  he  in- 
sist upon  dealing  with  his  workmen  "as  individuals."  While  in  his  estab- 
lishment wages  may  not  by  this  means  be  reduced,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
other  establishments  are  organized,  still  the  principle  for  which  he  stands, 
if  universally  adopted,  would  mean  the  degradation  and  impoverishment  of 
the  working  classes.  There  are  many  employers  who  surrender  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  individual  bargain  without  accepting  the  principle  of  the  collec- 
tive bargain.  These  employers  state  that  they  do  not  insist  upon  dealing 
with  their  employees  as  individuals,  but  that  they  must  retain  the  right  of 
dealing  with  "their  own  employees  solely,"  and  that  they  must  not  be  forced 
to  permit  a  man  who  is  not  their  own  employee  to  interfere  in  their  busi- 
ness. The  right  to  bargain  collectively,  however,  or  to  take  any  other  con- 
certed action,  necessarily  involves  the  right  to  representation.  Experience 
and  reason  both  show  that  a  man,  even  if  otherwise  qualified,  who  is  de- 
pendent upon  the  good  will  of  an  employer,  is  in  no  position  to  negotiate 
with  him,  since  an  insistence  upon  what  he  considers  to  be  the  rights  of  the 
men  represented  by  him  may  mean  his  dismissal  or,  at  all  events,  the  loss  of 
the  favor  of  his  employer.  Not  only  should  workingmen  have  the  right  of 
contracting  collectively,  but  they  should  also  have  the  right  of  being  repre- 
sented by  whomsoever  they  wish.  The  denial  of  the  right  of  representation 
is  tyranny.  Without  the  right  to  choose  their  representative,  the  men  can- 
not enjoy  the  full  benefit  of  collective  bargaining;  and  without  the  right  of 
collective  bargaining,  the  door  is  opened  to  the  individual  contract  and  to 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  II 

the  progressive  debasement  of  the  working  classes,  and  to  the  deterioration 
o:  conditions  of  work  to  the  level  of  conditions  in  the  sweated  and  unregu- 
lated trades.  To  avoid  this  calamity  and  to  raise  the  working  classes  to  a 
high  state  of  efficiency  and  a  high  standard  of  citizenship,  the  organized 
workmen  demand  and  insist  upon  "the  recognition  of  the  union." 


CHAPTER  II 
LABOR  UNORGANIZED 

The  History  of  Labor  is  the  History  of  the  Human  Race.  The  Chronicles  of 
Kings  and  the  Annals  of  the  Poor.  Ancient  Society.  War  and  Slavery.  The  Mili- 
tary System.  Character  of  Ancient  Slavery.  Serfdom.  Free  Labor  and  the  Freedom 
of  Contract  Free  Labor,  the  Collective  Contract,  and  Trade  Unionism. 

THE  history  of  labor  is  the  history  of  the  human  race.  From  the  dim- 
mest ages  of  antiquity,  man  has  eaten  his  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his 
brow  and  has  toiled  incessantly  that  he  might  live.  There  has  never  been  a 
Golden  Age  when  men  lived  without  working  or  reaped  fields  that  were  not 
sown.  All  that  the  race  has  gained,  the  right  to  live  and  bear  children,  the 
improvement  of  existence,  the  securing  of  comfort,  happiness,  and  civiliza- 
tion, has  been  the  result  of  an  unremittent,  never-ending  toil  on  the  part  of 
millions. 

The  reward  of  labor  has  not  always  been  to  the  laborer.  From  the 
beginning  some  have  worked  and  others  played,  some  have  tilled  and  others 
eaten  of  the  fruits.  The  workers,  however,  have  always  been  in  a  vast 
majority. 

In  reading  the  history  of  past  ages,  one  might  imagine  that  the  world 
was  comprised  of  kings  and  nobles  and  that  the  common  people  had  no  ex- 
istence. History  reads  like  the  newspapers  of  fashion,  which  tell  us  each 
summer  that  "everyone  is  out  of  town,"  though  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
wage  earners  are  sweltering  at  their  daily  tasks.  The  pages  of  history 
abound  with  narratives  of  the  doings  and  sayings  of  kings  and  princes, 
while  the  life  and  labor  of  the  vast,  silent,  unnumbered  multitude  of  toilers 
are  unrecorded  and  unmentioned. 

The  wage  earners  of  to-day  differ  fundamentally  from  the  men  who  in 

(12) 


ORGANIZED    LA    JR  13 

the  early  stages  of  society  performed  the  rough  work  of  civilization.  The 
ancient  workman  had  his  position  fixed  by  custom,  law,  or  religion.  There 
was  no  opportunity  for  free  contract  by  free  laborers,  and  society  evolved 
along  the  lines  of  labor  fixed  by  status.  The  very  early  history  of  man, 
moreover,  is  the  story  of  an  incessant  struggle  with  poverty.  Men  did  not 
sow  crops  nor  breed  animals,  but  subsisted  on  what  roots  or  wild  fruits  they 
found  in  the  woods,  or  such  food  as  they  managed  to  obtain  by  hunting  or 
fishing.  It  was  a  hand  to  mouth  existence.  By  such  uncertain  methods  of 
obtaining  the  means  of  subsistence,  large  populations  cannot  be  supported, 
but  flourish  only  when  man  helps  nature  by  domesticating  animals  and  cul- 
tivating crops.  The  numbers  of  men,  then,  did  not  increase,  and  great 
wealth  did  not  exist,  until  society  reached  the  pastoral  stage,  when  men  drove 
tamed  herds  from  one  good  pasture  to  another.  But  the  possibilities  of 
labor  became  still  greater  when  the  agricultural  stage  was  reached,  and  clans 
or  tribes  settled  on  fertile  plains.  From  this  time  on  a  high  state  of  civiliza- 
tion became  possible;  yet  the  essence  of  early  history  is  the  poverty  of 
society.  "\Yhere  the  struggle  with  nature  is  hard,  man  prefers  to  take  rather 
than  to  produce,  and  the  dominant  note  of  early  history  is  war.  Rival  com- 
munities battled  with  each  other  for  the  means  of  subsistence.  As  in  our 
days  the  distribution  of  wealth  causes  bloodless  contests  between  various 
social  classes,  so  in  the  greater  poverty  of  those  days  the  insufficiency  of 
the  food  supply  led  to  constant  struggles  between  various  tribes  and  nations 
and  to  a  never-ending  war.  Unlike  modern  society,  which  is  based  on  in- 
dustry and  the  production  of  wealth,  the  nations  of  those  days  were  organ- 
ized on  a  military  basis,  and  the  levying  of  tribute,  which  plays  so  great  a 
part  in  ancient  history,  shows  that  conquering  nations  lay  emphasis  upon 
the  forcible  acquisition  rather  than  upon  the  production  of  wealth.  \Yith 
war  came  slavery.  The  conquering  tril>es  in  their  raids  secured  not  only 
the  goods  produced  by  the  vanquished,  but  equally  their  means  of  produc- 
tion, most  of  the  captives  becoming  slaves. 

At  first  this  slavery,  unlike  that  of  modern  timc^.  was  merely  inciden- 
tal, and  for  a  long  time  the  number  of  slaves  remained  small.      It  increased, 


14  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

however,  with  the  development  of  society.  Servitude  was  not  only  forced 
upon  the  victims  of  war,  but  was  used  as  a  punishment  for  crime  or  failure 
to  pay  debts  or  taxes.  Slavery  became  a  system,  which  had  at  least  one 
merit,  that  it  trained  millions  of  men  to  work.  It  is  probable  that  the 
slavery  of  ancient  times  was  not  so  harsh  as  it  became  in  modern  days, 
•  although  many  individual  instances  of  excessive  cruelty  are  recorded.  The 
hard  work  of  the  community  was  performed  by  enslaved  labor,  without 
which  there  seemed  to  be  no  possibility  of  carrying  on  industry.  The  com- 
parative absence  of  money  prevented  the  toiler  from  receiving  any  pay  ex- 
cept his  food,  clothes,  and  lodging,  and  the  system  was  justified  by  philoso- 
phers and  philanthropists.  The  number  of  slaves  grew  by  natural  increase, 
and  communities  flourished  and  attained  to  power  under  a  system  based 
upon  the  enforced  labor  of  men. 

Under  slavery,  of  course,  there  could  be  no  democratic  organization  of 
labor,  such  as  exists  in  modern  times.  Certain  rights,  it  is  true,  were  ac- 
corded slaves  among  some  tribes  and  nations,  but  never  were  they  free 
agents  with  the  right  of  combination.  Though  often  subject  to  be  beaten 
or  slain  by  their  masters  they,  in  some  places,  enjoyed  the  protection  of  the 
law  and  might  even  obtain  money  and  save  it.  Still,  as  long  as  they  re- 
mained slaves  the  direction  of  their  labor  was  in  the  hands  of  their  masters 
and  they  were  necessarily  obliged  to  perform  such  services  as  were  de- 
manded of  them.  Frequently,  the  growth  of  rights  among  slaves  led  to  the 
emancipation  of  individual  bondmen.  The  right  to  save  money  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  right  to  purchase  freedom.  As  a  consequence,  even  in  ancient 
times,  there  existed  a  certain  number  of  free  workmen  consisting  of  eman- 
cipated slaves,  their  children,  or  unfortunate  representatives  of  other  classes, 
though,  as  long  as  slavery  endured  and  as  long  as  wrar  remained  the  chief 
concern  of  the  nation,  work  was  regarded  as  degrading  and  dishonoring. 

At  a  later  stage  in  the  history  of  labor  came  the  system  of  serfage. 
The  distinguishing  characteristic  of  serfage  is  that  the  laborer,  while  not 
actually  a  slave,  is  attached  to  the  soil,  and  though  more  or  less  free  in  his 
domestic  and  private  relations,  is  compelled  to  remain  upon  the  land  upon 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  15 

which  he  was  born  or  to  which  he  was  allotted,  and  to  work  under  condi- 
tions prescribed  for  him  and  not  by  him. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  serfs,  or  even  the  slaves  before  them, 
necessarily  desired  freedom.  Among  some  races  the  slaves  looked  with 
contempt  upon  the  man  without  a  master,  and  even  in  Anglo-Saxon  Eng- 
land, the  law  prescribed  that  a  lordless  man  be  allotted  to  a  lord  in  the  neigh- 
borhood. Present  day  ideals  did  not  govern  society  at  that  time.  The 
system  of  serfage  involved  a  greater  independence  than  did  slavery,  but  the 
character  and  routine  of  work  were  prescribed,  not  decided  upon  by  negotia- 
tion or  contract,  the  workingman  being  born  to  his  position  and  to  his  work. 
The  distinguishing  mark  of  ancient  labor  is  a  fixity  of  relations,  a  determina- 
tion of  conditions  by  law,  custom,  or  religion,  and  no  more  than  slavery  was 
serfage  conducive  to  democratic  organization.  Free  workers,  it  is  true, 
even  in  ancient  times  apparently  associated  themselves  into  bodies,  yet 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  modern  organized  labor,  with  its  potentiality  of 
regulating  conditions  and  remuneration  by  concerted  action,  could  jx)ssibly 
have  existed. 

The  story  of  modern  labor  begins  with  the  gradual  emancipation  or 
freedom  from  serfage.  This  development  took  place  at  various  times  in 
the  various  countries,  being  earlier  in  England  than  elsewhere,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  the  English  were  the  least  military  of  nations.  The  growth  of 
England's  industries  and  consequently  of  its  towns  j>ermitted  the  formation 
of  groups  of  city  workmen  who  acknowledged  no  lord.  The  obligation  to 
remain  upon  the  land  and  to  pay  certain  labor  duos  to  the  lord  was  com- 
muted into  money  payments.  Instead  of  giving  a  specified  number  of  days 
(if  work,  the  laborer  now  made  a  certain  money  payment,  which  came  to  lie- 
regarded  as  rent,  while  the  property  right  came  to  be  invested  in  the  man 
himself.  The  right  of  contract  was  greatly  extended  and  the  establishment 
of  a  fixed  money  or  medium  of  exchange  aided  in  the  emancipation  of  the 
laboring  masses. 

The  evolution  from  serfage,  as  the  evolution  from  slavery,  was  due 
to  the  greater  efficiency  of  free  labor.  Where  a  man  is  not  free  there  can 


l6  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

not  be  the  same  incentive  to  work  as  where  he  is  free.  The  prospect  of 
gain  is  a  stronger  incentive  than  the  fear  of  a  master.  The  freedom  of  the 
laborer  and  the  right  of  free  contract  changed  entirely  the  relation  between 
the  workman  and  his  work.  Under  slavery  there  had  been  no  necessity  for 
a  labor  contract.  The  master  owned  the  worker,  as  he  owned  the  tools  and 
the  material  to  be  worked  upon ;  the  slaves  worked  as  many  hours  and  under 
whatever  conditions  the  master  prescribed,  and  all  questions  of  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  relations  between  the  two  men  were  settled  by  the  crack  of  the 
lash.  With  the  emancipation  of  the  slave,  however,  the  freedom  of  the  in- 
dividual contract  was  assured,  and  the  way  was  paved  for  ultimately  secur- 
ing the  right  of  forming  trade  unions  and  making  collective  contracts. 

The  rise  of  free  labor  did  not  mean  the  immediate  establishment  of  labor 
organizations.  As  long  as  the  laborer  worked  for  himself,  or  as  long  as 
he  worked  for  a  master  approximately  his  equal,  and  as  long  as  industry 
was  conducted  upon  a  small  scale,  trade  unionism  was  not  essential  or  even 
possible. 

Trade  unionism  is  based  upon  the  idea  of  the  association  of  free  work- 
ingmen,  united  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  conditions  of  labor.  Where 
workingmen  are  not  free  or  where  the  conditions  of  labor  are  fixed  by  law, 
custom,  or  religion,  or  by  the  action  of  individual  workmen  or  employers, 
there  trade  unionism  cannot  exist.  Trade  unionism  is  a  late  product  of  the 
development  of  free  labor  employed  in  industry  upon  a  large  scale.  The 
organization  of  labor  results  only  from  the  organization  of  industry.  The 
conditions  giving  rise  to  trade  unionism  and  the  steps  by  which  labor  organ- 
izations grew  to  their  present  position  in  England  and  the  United  States  will 
be  the  subject  of  succeeding  chapters. 


CHAPTER  III 
TRADE  UNIONISM— A  PRODUCT  OF  MODERN  INDUSTRY 

Trade  Unionism  Bound  up  with  Modern  Factory  System.  What  is  Modern  In- 
dustry? What  is  the  Factory  System?  The  Steam  Engine  and  Machinery  Revolu- 
tionize Industry.  Canals,  Railroads,  Telegraph,  Telephone,  Electricity.  Growth  of 
Cities.  Education.  Political  Democracy.  Increase  of  Poverty  and  of  Wealth.  This 
Development  takes  place  first  in  England.  Reasons  for  English  Domination:  Internal 
Peace,  Rivers.  Good  Roads,  Harbors;  Political  Development.  The  creation  of  a  New 
World.  Modern  Trade  Unions  and  the  Mediaeval  Guilds. 

NO  one  can  understand  the  true  nature  of  trade  unionism  without 
understanding  the  industrial  revolution  and  what  it  accomplished. 
The  history  of  mankind  has  been  more  vitally  affected  by  changes  in  its 
machines  and  its  methods  of  doing  business  than  by  any  action  or  counsel 
of  statesmen  or  philosophers.  What  we  call  the  modern  world,  with  its 
huge  populations,  its  giant  cities,  its  political  democracy,  its  growing  inten- 
sity of  life,  its  contrasts  of  wealth  and  poverty — this  great,  whirling,  restless 
civilization,  with  all  its  vexing  problems,  is  the  offspring  merely  of  changed 
methods  of  producing  wealth.  All  that  is  good  and  all  that  is  bad  in  the  new 
order  of  things  is  due  to  these  changes.  The  rapid  progress  in  arts  and 
sciences,  the  advance  in  technical  processes,  the  change  from  wood  to  iron, 
from  iron  to  steel,  the  girding  of  the  earth  by  the  iron  rail,  the  copper  wire, 
the  vivified  air  itself,  the  education  of  the  people,  the  massing  of  millions 
in  cities,  the  abject  misery  of  legions  of  the  poor,  the  whole  change  from  a 
monotonously  simple  to  a  bewildcringly  complex  and  intricate  life — all  this 
is  a  part  and  a  consequence  of  the  industrial  revolution. 

This  revolution  did  not  break  upon  society  in  the  dawn  of  a  morning. 
Like  all  revolutions,  it  was  merely  the  last  stage  of  a  long  evolution.  Dur- 
ing the  protracted  winter  of  the  dark  ages  England,  like  the  rest  of  Europe. 
was  hibernating,  to  awake  only  in  response  to  a  scries  of  shocks  from  the 
outside  world.  With  the  discovery  of  America  in  1492  and  its  subsequent 
2  (17) 


f8  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

settlement  by  European  nations,  the  death-knell  of  the  feudal  system  in 
Europe  was  sounded,  and  from  that  time  on  modern  political  conditions 
began  to  exist  in  the  Old  World.  The  little  principalities  were  swallowed 
up  by  great  states  and  the  modern  nations  of  Europe  took  their  rise,  while 
similar  changes  took  place  in  the  world  of  industry  and  business. 

During  the  middle  ages  industry  had  been  circumscribed  by  the  limits 
of  a  province,  or  even  of  a  village.  In  most  countries  of  Europe  toll-gates 
were  to  be  found  on  every  road.  Little  commerce  was  carried  on,  and  that 
was  limited  to  things  of  small  bulk  and  large  value.  At  mediaeval  fairs 
there  was  some  little  trade,  but  this  was  small  and  consisted  chiefly  of 
articles  of  common  consumption.  The  bad  state  and  insecurity  of  the 
roads  and  the  excessive  cost  of  haulage,  the  burdens  laid  upon  transportation 
and  commerce,  and  the  comparative  lack  of  money  or  of  any  means  of  credit, 
conspired  with  the  poverty  of  the  nations  to  prevent  the  growth  of  trade. 
As  a  consequence,  much  of  the  production  of  a  household  was  for  the  use  of 
that  household,  and  most  of  the  production  of  a  village  for  the  use  of  that 
village.  There  was  no  opportunity  for  a  division  of  labor,  since  division  of 
labor  is  possible  only  where  production  is  large  and  the  market  extended. 
Not  until  the  beginning  of  modern  times,  with  the  discovery  of  America  and 
the  foundation  of  colonies  did  markets  expand. 

At  the  dawn  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  capitalist  class  began  to  exist 
in  England.  These  capitalists  consisted  of  men  of  some  wealth  who  con- 
tracted for  the  purchase  of  raw  materials  and  for  the  sale  of  articles  and 
gave  out  the  work  to  be  done  in  cottages  in  the  various  villages.  From  this 
time  on  there  developed  a  separate  class  of  workingmen,  who  had  no  hope 
of  eventually  becoming  masters  of  their  craft.  As  time  went  on  the  inde- 
pendent contractors  became  employers  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word, 
assembling  their  employees  in  workshops  or  small  manufacturing  towns. 
Henceforth  the  workman  grew  more  dependent  upon  the  employer,  becom- 
ing a  subject  of  the  tolling  factory  bell. 

The  industrial  revolution  was  more  rapid  and  complete  in  England 
than  elsewhere,  because  at  that  time  England  was  of  all  nations  the  most 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  IQ 

advanced.  Prior  to  the  invention  of  the  railway  and  the  improvement  of 
the  common  roads",  commerce  was  practically  confined  to  traffic  by  sea  and 
river,  and  much  of  England's  progress  was  due  to  its  being  an  island,  an 
island,  moreover,  with  a  meshwork  of  navigable  streams.  Furthermore, 
the  possession  of  one  of  the  strongest  fleets  in  the  world  guaranteed  Eng- 
land against  foreign  invasion,  and  politically  and  industrially,  the  country 
led  the  nations  of  Europe.  For  centuries  no  foreign  army  had  set  foot 
upon  English  soil,  and  thus  unmolested  the  Englishman  could  till  his  farm 
and  pasture  his  flocks.  The  country  grew  in  population  and  wealth,  woolen 
and  silk  mills  arose,  and  the  nation  was  able  during  the  course  of  many 
generations  to  work  out  its  political  and  economic  salvation. 

The  really  important  industrial  changes,  or  what  is  called  the  industrial 
revolution,  occurred  during  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  espe- 
cially during  the  period  from  1760  to  1785.  During  this  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, there  came  a  series  of  revolutionary  inventions,  the  like  of  which  had 
never  before  been  witnessed  in  the  history  of  the  world.  This  generation 
saw  the  invention  of  the  steam  engine,  which  revolutionized  the  production 
of  power,  and  the  discovery  of  the  process  of  puddling  and  rolling  iron  and 
smelting  by  coal.  The  invention  of  the  spinning  jenny,  the  power  loom, 
and  the  carding  machine  gave  an  impetus  to  the  cheap  and  wholesale  pro- 
duction of  textiles,  while  other  inventions  in  the  pottery  trade,  in  printing 
from  cylinders,  in  bleaching  by  chemical  agents,  furthered  the  rapid  devel- 
opment of  industry.  The  market  was  extended  by  improved  methods  of 
digging  canals,  and  the  stupendous  development  of  commerce,  which  was 
later  to  follow  through  the  introduction  of  railway  and  steamship  locomo- 
tion, was  already  foreshadowed.  These  inventions  placed  England  in  a 
position  to  produce  for  the  civilized  world  and  to  break  down  the  barriers 
which  had  previously  restricted  commerce.  IT.c  veins  of  old  England  were 
filled  with  new  blood,  and  industry  was  stimulated  as  never  before.  Busi- 
ness became  wholesale  instead  of  retail,  and  labor  was  affected  exactly  as 
all  other  commodities  of  sale  or  purchase.  In  medi:eval  times  wages  h,:d 
largely  been  determined  by  custom  and  tradition,  when  not  actually  legally 


20  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

fixed  by  justices  of  the  peace.  The  inventions  and  discoveries  of  this  period 
created  an  enormous  demand  for  labor,  especially  the  labor  of  women  and 
children.  The  peaceful,  sleepy  villages  of  Southern  England  were  emptied 
of  their  inhabitants ;  the  English  yeomen,  displaced  by  the  political  and 
economic  development  of  the  preceding  century,  flocked  to  the  factories  and 
to  the  busy  upgrowing  towns  of  the  North.  The  new  industrial  world  with 
all  its  latent  good  and  evil  had  been  born. 

It  was  thus  in  England  that  the  revolution  first  took  place;  it  was 
therefore,  this  country  which  first  acquired  great  wealth  and  industrial  pre- 
eminence, and  was  first  visited  by  the  modern  labor  problem.  Just  as  the 
factory  system  in  England  produced  trade  unions  and  the  labor  problem, 
so  the  same  cause  was  followed  by  the  same  result  in  other  countries. 
France,  Germany,  Belgium,  Holland,  and  Switzerland  were  from  fifty  to 
seventy-five  years  behind  England  in  their  industrial  development,  but. 
with  the  advent  of  the  factory  in  these  countries,  there  came  also  the  labor 
problem  and  the  trade  union.  What  was  true  of  England  and  of  continental 
countries  was  also  true  of  the  United  States ;  and  in  every  country  where 
the  industrial  revolution  occurred;  an  entire  readjustment  of  the  conditions 
of  labor  and  capital  was  found  necessary.  Thus  modern  industrial  condi- 
tions gave  rise  to  the  need  of  modern  trade  unions.  In  Russia,  Hungary, 
Servia  and  other  backward  countries,  the  industrial  revolution  is  as  yet  only 
in  its  initial  stages,  and  in  these  lands  trade  unionism  can  hardly  be  said  to 
exist,  since  the  organization  of  labor  is  necessarily  founded  upon  a  high 
state  of  industrial  development 

It  is  vain  to  deplore,  as  many  have  done  and  still  do,  the  evil  effects 
of  a  movement  of  the  stupendous  magnitude  of  the  industrial  revolution. 
Whether  for  weal  or  woe,  the  change  was  inevitable,  and  reform  could  be 
found  only  in  further  development  and  not  in  a  return  to  the  past.  For  some 
time  the  people  of  England  looked  to  the  past  for  relief  from  the  evils  which 
the  factory  system  had  brought  upon  them.  Workingmen  destroyed  machin- 
ery, committed  violence,  and  applied  for  the  reenactment  or  reinforcement 
of  obsolete  and  impracticable  laws,  while  the  foremost  men  of  the  time 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  21 

wrote  impassioned  invectives  against  the  new  regime.  Only  gradually  was 
the  true  method  of  reform  for  the  evils  of  the  factory  system  seen  to  lie 
in  factory  legislation  and  in  the  organization  of  labor.  Gradually  the  evil 
conditions  produced  by  the  factory  system  brought,  at  least  in  part,  their 
own  corrective,  and  the  creation,  through  production  on  a  large  scale,  of  a 
separate  working  class  with  separate  working  class  ideals  formed  the  origin 
and  basis  of  trade  unionism  as  it  exists  to-day. 

Centuries  before  the  advent  of  the  modern  trade  union,  there  had 
existed  certain  trade  organizations  called  guilds.  These  guilds,  however, 
while  in  some  respects  similar  to  trade  unions,  differed  from  the  modern 
labor  organization  as  fundamentally  as  the  ancient  slave  or  mediaeval  serf 
differs  from  the  modern  workingman.  The  guilds  were  composed  not  only 
of  workmen,  but  of  masters,  and  these  latter  usually  exercised  control  over 
the  organization.  In  the  days  of  the  guilds,  the  division  of  society  was  not 
one  of  journeymen  against  masters  within  the  trade — because  the  journey- 
man expected  in  course  of  time  to  become  a  master  himself — but  rather  of 
one  guild  or  trade  against  another.  The  guilds  were  semi-public  bodies 
with  the  power  of  government  within  the  trade  and  often  partaking  in  the 
government  of  the  city  itself.  The  old  guilds  could  be  better  likened  to 
organizations  composed  of  employers  and  workingmcn,  and  even  the  public 
itself,  than  to  an  association  of  workmen  alone.  Guilds  had  benefit  features, 
as  have  many  of  our  modem  trade  unions,  and,  like  them,  fostered  a  frater- 
nal spirit  among  the  workmen.  Furthermore,  they  regulated  wages,  the 
hours  of  labor,  the  character  and  excellence  of  the  work,  the  number  of 
apprentices,  and  other  conditions  of  trade,  thus  resembling  in  at  least  some 
respects  the  trade  union  of  to-day.  The  modern  labor  organization,  how- 
ever, differs  from  the  guild,  in  that  it  is  a  union  of  workingmcn  banded 
together  not  primarily  in  the  interests  of  the  masters  of  the  trade,  but  in 
their  own  interests,  and  in  the  further  fact  that  the  workingmcn  so  united 
are  likely  to  remain  workingmcn  for  the  rest  of  their  live^.  It  is  not 
believed  by  men  who  have  studied  this  question  that  the  trade  unions  which 
sprang  up  in  the  eighteenth  century  and  began  to  flourish  extensively  in  the 


22  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

nineteenth  had  any  direct  historical  connection  with  the  old  guilds,  and  the 
history  of  the  guilds  is  chiefly  interesting  as  showing  that  at  all  times  some 
form  of  organization  has  been  deemed  necessary  by  workingmen.  The 
character  of  the  organization,  however,  has  changed  fundamentally  with 
the  change  in  the  character  of  industry  and  in  the  position  and  prospects  of 
the  workingman.  Modern  trade  unionism  must  therefore  be  considered  as 
a  product  of  modern  industry  and  as  the  direct  offspring  of  the  factory 
system. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  OPPRESSION  OF  LABOR  UNDER  THE  FACTORY  SYSTEM 

Merrie  England  before  the  Factory  System.  Growth  of  Cities.  Wheat  Famines. 
Dear  Bread  and  Low  Wages.  The  Disappearance  of  the  Old  Handworkers.  Fifteen 
Hours  a  day  for  Women  and  Children.  The  Parishes  Sell  Pauper  Children  to  Manu- 
facturers. Degradation  of  Labor.  Terrible  Death  Rate.  The  Birth  of  the  City  Slum. 
Sickness  and  Plagues.  The  Manufacture  of  Cripples.  Uncertainty  of  Work.  No 
Room  for  Old  Men.  Immoral  Tone  of  the  Factories.  Opium  for  Babies.  No  time 
for  Childbirth.  Death-dealing  Machines.  Deterioration  of  the  Workingman. 

THE  factory  system  gave  birth  in  England  to  a  rarely  paralleled  oppres- 
sion of  the  working  classes.  It  had  been  predicted  that,  were  there 
no  artificial  checks  upon  human  action,  the  welfare  of  the  whole  nation 
would  be  attained  by  allowing  each  individual  to  pursue  his  own  interest. 
This  policy  of  permitting  one  section  of  a  population  to  seek  its  ends  at 
the  expense  of  another  culminated  in  a  state  of  affairs  incredible  but  for 
the  testimony  of  thousands  of  witnesses  before  the  various  Parliamentary 
investigating  committees  appointed  during  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  These  investigations  were  as  a  blinding  light  suddenly  cast  into 
p.  deep  Inferno,  photographing  a  swarming  mass  of  torturing  fiends  and 
tortured  victims.  Even  after  the  lapse  of  over  half  a  century  the  mind 
recoils  with  horror  from  the  most  superficial  description  of  these  conditions. 

With  the  coming  of  the  factorv.  England  began  to  change  from  a  coun- 
try of  farms  and  pastures  to  a  land  of  manufacturing  towns.  During  this 
lime  towns  and  cities,  especially  in  the  manufacturing  districts  of  the  Xorth. 
grew  at  a  rapid  pace,  while  the  farming  population  failed  to  increase  in  pro- 
portion. The  growth  of  the  towns  meant  the  growth  of  a  labor  supply  for 
the  factories,  and  everything  conspired  to  produce  this  result. 

For  half  a  century  before  i  /<V)  crops  had  been  unusually  good  and  har- 
vests plentiful,  but  the  decades  immediately  following  that  date  contained 

(23) 


24  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

a  series  of  years  of  unprecedentedly  short  crops.  Times  were  bad  in  the 
country  districts.  The  yeoman,  or  small  farming  class,  was  gradually 
driven  from  the  farm  to  the  town.  The  common  land  for  the  pasture  of 
cattle  was  rapidly  enclosed  and  appropriated,  and  with  the  advent  of  the 
factory,  the  women  of  the  farm  were  deprived  of  their  winter  earnings  from 
spinning  and  weaving.  The  old  hand  weavers,  who  worked  in  their  own 
homes  and  cultivated  a  small  plot  of  ground,  were  driven  out  by  the  compe- 
tition of  the  power  loom,  and  these  as  well  as  the  yeomen  moved  in  droves 
to  the  towns.  The  grinding  poverty  of  these  newcomers  did  not  prevent 
but  rather  accelerated  the  increase  in  population.  There  was  "a  devastating 
harvest  of  babies,"  doomed  to  a  premature  end  in  the  city  slum  or  to  a  liv- 
ing death  in  the  rapacious  factories.  Taxes  increased,  the  cost  of  living 
rose,  and  the  real  wages  of  workers  fell,  during  the  early  years  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  to  a  point  below  which  they  had  probably  never  before  sunk 
during  the  five  centuries  preceding. 

vSo  low  did  wages  fall  that  men  came  to  believe  in  the  idea  of  an  iron 
law  of  wages,  a  cruel,  immutable  law,  by  which  the  pay  of  workmen  was 
fixed  at  the  lowest  point  compatible  with  mere  existence.  The  actual  con- 
ditions of  the  period  seemed  to  warrant  and  verify  the  most  dismal  and 
pessimistic  theories.  The  attitude  of  manufacturers  under  the  stress  of 
competition  was  that  of  masters  toward  slaves  gratuitously  obtained.  As 
long  as  a  slave  is  a  valuable  commodity,  costing,  let  us  say,  a  thousand  dol- 
lars or  more,  it  pays  his  master  to  be  as  careful  of  him  as  of  an  ox  or  a  horse. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  last  century,  however,  what  were  practically  white 
slaves  were  delivered  free  of  cost  and  in  almost  unlimited  numbers.  Fre- 
quently manufacturers,  far  from  paying  for  the  use  of  pauper  children,  were 
actually  compensated  for  ridding  the  parish  of  them.  In  one  case  an  em- 
ployer contracted  to  take  one  idiot  child  for  each  twenty  sane  children.  The 
ruthless  waste  of  human  life  under  such  conditions  scarce  finds  a  parallel  in 
the  chronicles  of  peace. 

The  change  from  a  rural  to  a  city  residence  on  the  part  of  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  men  was  attended  by  widespread  and  acute  misery.  The 


President  of  (he   International  Association  of  Machinist-  ; 
the  American   Federation  of  Labor 


lird    \  ire  President  of 


MAX  .MORRIS 

Secretary  of  the  Retail  Clerks'  International  Protective  Association  ;   Fourth  Vice- 
President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  2$ 

crowded  slums  of  contemporaneous  New  York  and  London  find  their  pro- 
totype in  the  overcrowding  of  the  manufacturing-  towns  of  the  England  of 
that  day.  No  one  was  concerned  for  the  wellbeing  of  the  newcomers.  They 
lived  in  the  smallest  of  dingy,  filthy,  foul-smelling  rooms,  in  ill-built  houses 
on  ill-kept  streets,  in  cellars  and  over  open  drains.  In  these  dens,  reeking 
with  accumulations  of  filth,  destitute  of  the  primary  conveniences  and  fun- 
damental necessaries  of  health,  families  of  artisans  crowded  under  condi- 
tions destructive  of  morality  and  fatal  to  life  itself.  All  ages  and  sexes 
herded  together ;  there  were  as  many  people  in  a  room  as  there  was  impure 
air  to  breathe.  Refuse  and  filth  littered  the  streets  of  the  workingmen's 
quarter,  which  became  a  breeding  place  for  the  most  virulent  diseases. 
Epidemics  of  typhus  and  scarlet  fever  periodically  ravaged  these  precincts 
and  at  times  invaded  the  aristocratic  portions  of  the  towns. 

The  misery  of  the  workingmen  was  aggravated  by  their  numbers.  The 
birth  rate  both  in  England  and  Ireland  was  high,  and  population  mounted 
by  leaps  and  bounds.  At  the  same  time,  the  change  from  manufacturing 
by  hand  to  manufacturing  by  machine  released  a  large  surplus  labor  force, 
which  was  suddenly  thrust  into  the  labor  market.  The  failure  of  the  crops. 
the  devastating  effects  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  the  sinews  of  which  England 
was  providing  for  all  Europe,  the  heavy  taxes,  and  the  cruelly  oppressive 
poor  law — all  tended  to  depress  the  real  wages  of  agricultural  workers  and 
to  force  them  into  the  factories. 

The  condition  of  these  workmen  in  the  textile  and  other  factories  was 
incredibly  bad.  The  dav's  work  was  constantly  lengthened,  in  some  cases 
to  fourteen,  sixteen,  and  more  hours,  and  while  not  difficult,  the  labor  was 
confining  and  nerve-wearing.  There  was  little  provision  for  the  safety  of 
the  workman,  and  terrible  accidents  were  a  matter  of  daily  occurrence  in  the 
crowded  mills  and  factories.  Periods  of  feverish  activity,  during  which 
men  were  worked  l>eyond  the  limit  of  human  endurance,  were  succeeded  by 
still  more  harassing  periods  of  depression,  when  thousands  of  men  were 
thrown  into  the  street.  The  low  wages  and  the  long  hours  of  toil  left  the 
workmen  with  desire  for  no  healthful  pleasures  and  unfitted  tlit-m  for  moral 


26  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

and  mental  development.  The  drunkenness  which  prevailed  at  that  time — 
when  in  some  cities  one  out  of  every  ten  houses  was  a  tavern — the  growing 
sexual  license  of  the  population  and  the  rapid  increase  of  illegitimacy  char- 
acterized the  manufacturing  towns  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
England.  The  terrible  handicap  under  which  the  adult  population  was 
laboring  was  reflected  in  a  veritable  floodtide  of  criminality,  the  number  of 
criminals  increasing  almost  sevenfold  within  a  period  of  thirty-seven  years. 
To  the  male  operative,  however,  the  worst  feature  of  his  work  was  its 
insecurity.  Not  only  was  he  liable  in  bad  times  to  lose  his  position,  but  in 
addition,  with  each  advance  in  technical  processes  thousands  and  tens  of 
thousands  lost  their  livelihood.  True,  with  the  increase  in  manufacturing, 
some  of  these  men  regained  positions,  yet  there  were  always  many  perma- 
nently deprived  of  the  means  of  subsistence.  The  number  of  men  forced  to 
leave  the  region,  to  become  tramps,  or  to  seek  refuge  in  poorhouses,  grew 
with  each  decade,  and  even  in  good  times  there  was  a  tendency  in  the  fac- 
tories toward  the  displacement  of  the  men  by  their  wives  and  children.  The 
light,  confining  work  of  the  textile  factory  was  one  to  which  the  physique 
of  women  and  children  was  peculiarly  adapted,  and  this  labor  had  the  addi- 
tional advantage  of  being  cheap  and  docile.  In  the  textile  factories  men 
worked  side  by  side  with  their  wives  and  children,  and  in  other  cases  were 
supported  by  their  wives  who  had  taken  their  places  at  the  whirling  ma- 
chines. The  mad  rush  for  exorbitant  profits,  unchecked  by  Government 
or  by  the  concerted  action  of  workingmen,  led  to  tragic  situations.  The  un- 
restricted play  of  "the  natural  law  of  supply  and  demand"  of  labor  reversed 
the  law  of  Nature,  unsexed  men  and  women,  and  made  the  child  the  father 
of  the  man,  and  his  breadwinner.  In  many  cases,  full-grown  men  stayed  at 
home  minding  babies  or  mending  stockings,  while  the  women  were  engaged 
all  day  at  the  wearing  work  of  the  mills.  There  was  no  room  in  the  fac- 
tories for  old  men.  Of  sixteen  hundred  operatives  employed  in  several 
factories  in  Harpur  and  Lanark  but  ten  were  over  forty-five  years  of  age, 
and  of  over  twenty-two  thousand  operatives  in  Stockport  and  Manchester 
less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  were  of  that  age.  The  result  was  not  only 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  27 

an  increase  in  the  number  of  paupers  and  criminals,  but  a  humiliating  de- 
pendence of  men  upon  women,  in  many  cases  resulting  in  the  breaking  up  of 
the  home. 

Much  of  the  burden  of  these  evil  conditions,  unrestrained  by  law  or  by 
trade  unions,  fell  upon  the  shoulders  of  women.  The  factory  knew  no  regard 
lor  sex  or  weakness.  The  hours  of  labor  were  frequently  extended  to  four- 
teen and  over,  and  the  women  were  obliged  to  be  at  their  work  on  the  min- 
ute, irrespective  of  the  distance  from  their  homes  or  the  domestic  duties 
which  they  were  thus  obliged  to  neglect.  The  condition  of  the  factory 
rooms  was  ill  adapted  to  foster  feelings  of  delicacy  or  the  finer  womanly 
instincts.  Xo  special  provision  was  made  for  wants  of  the  operatives — no 
attempt  to  secure  privacy  or  decent  accommodations.  The  dangers  which 
beset  women  in  industrial  life  were  increased  by  the  attitude  of  the  employ- 
ers, and  the  moral  atmosphere  of  the  factories  became  absolutely  intolerable. 

The  physical  conditions  of  work  were  equally  bad.  The  air  of  the 
textile  factories,  warm,  humid,  fetid,  unventilated,  and,  in  the  cotton  and 
linen  mills,  laden  with  irritating  fibrous  dust,  exerted  an  enervating  effect 
upon  the  operatives  and  produced  a  series  of  chronic  affections.  The  women 
of  the  factory,  insufficiently  clothed,  were  exposed,  upon  leaving,  to  the  rain 
or  cold,  and  diseases  of  the  lungs  became  frequent.  Over  the  heads  of  these 
women  hung  the  constant  fear  of  losing  their  positions,  and  with  them  their 
grip  upon  life,  and  the  employer  used  this  dread  as  a  whip  to  goad  them  on 
to  new  exertions  and  to  the  suffering  of  new  indignities.  In  the  eyes  of 
some  manufacturers  no  illness  and  no  condition  excused  the  worker  for 
non-attendance  or  lateness.  Instances  are  even  recorded  of  children  born 
in  the  noise  and  the  whirl  and  the  filthiness  of  the  factory  itself.  The  testi- 
mony of  many  women  separated  from  their  offspring,  and  frequently  work- 
ing at  exhausting  labor  during  this  critical  period,  presents  the  most  fearful 
indictment  against  unrestrained  and  unregulated  competition  in  female 
labor  that  can  be  well  conceived. 

The  effect  of  such  conditions  upon  the  children  of  the  factory  operatives 
may  be  imagined.  Kven  before  birth  the  chances  of  these  babes  were 


28  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

lessened  by  the  excessive  work  of  their  mothers.  The  mortality  of  the  new- 
born was  deplorably  high.  Unable  to  attend  to  their  children,  mothers 
would  frequently  give  them  in  charge  to  others  or  leave  them  in  the  care  of 
children  scarcely  older  than  the  infants  themselves.  The  death-rate  among 
infants  so  given  out  reminds  one  of  the  terrible  mortality  in  baby  farms. 
Children  were  quieted  with  spirits  and  even  opiates,  and  if  left  at  home  they 
were  necessarily  neglected  in  the  absence  of  both  parents.  The  number  of 
children  burnt  or  mangled  rose  to  astounding  proportions.  In  Manchester 
some  52  per  cent,  of  all  children  of  the  working  people  died  before  the  age 
of  five  years,  while  the  death-rate  for  the  well-to-do  classes  amounted  to 
only  20  per  cent.  Even  those  who  survived  and  lived  out  their  childhood 
in  the  damp,  dark,  filthy,  reeking  dwellings  of  the  poor  held  an  insecure 
lease  upon  life.  The  poor  children  of  Manchester  and  other  factory  towns 
presented  an  appearance  woefully  pallid.  Insufficient  in  quantity  and  lack- 
ing in  nutrition  as  was  the  food  of  the  adults,  that  of  infants  was  even 
worse.  Furthermore,  in  the  absence  of  all  suitable  medical  attendance, 
owing  to  its  dearness,  the  working  people  were  obliged  to  resort  to  patent 
medicines  containing  deleterious  substances. 

At  an  early  age  children  of  the  working  classes  were  graduated  from 
the  dangers-  of  the  street  to  the  dangers  of  the  mill.  In  the  cotton  mills 
children  began  to  be  employed  at  nine  years  of  age,  while  in  the  silk  mills 
boys  of  six  and  even  five  were  employed  for  interminably  long  hours.  The 
necessity  imposed  upon  all  workers,  even  children,  of  standing  through  the 
whole  -course  of  their  employment,  often  in  constrained  and  confining  pos- 
tures, their  attention  riveted  upon  a  monotous,  infinitely  self -repeating 
process,  crippled  both  mind  and  body.  The  manufacturing  towns  of  the 
North  were  full  of  deformed  children  suffering  from  rachitis  and  from 
affections  of  the  spinal  column.  A  peculiar  dislocation  of  the  legs,  in  which 
the  knees  were  bent  backward  and  inward,  manifested  itself  frequently. 
The  excessive  hours  also  resulted  in  an  arrested  development  of  both  sexes, 
amounting  frequently  to  permanent  immaturity,  and  in  many  other  ways  the 
sins  against  the  adults  were  visited  upon  the  children.  The  whole  physique 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  2Q 

of  the  working  population  was  debased  and  degraded.  The  ill  health  of  the 
people  became  proverbial,  and  the  streets  of  the  factory  towns  were  haunted 
by  pale,  sallow  faces.  The  recruiting  officers  of  His  Majesty's  army  found 
few  to  choose  from  among  the  throngs  of  undersized,  stoop-shouldered,  nar- 
row-chested workmen  whose  youth  and  strength  had  been  spent  in  the  fac- 
tories of  England. 

The  condition  of  the  miners  of  that  day  was  even  worse  than  that  of 
the  factory  hands.  The  factory  population  had  the  advantage  of  living 
together,  in  touch  with  or  at  least  in  sight  of  civilization ;  but  the  miners 
were  collected  in  miserable,  lonely,  out-of-the-way  villages  and  were  beyond 
the  reach  of  justice  and  of  public  opinion.  Consequently,  there  was  no  limit 
to  the  oppresssion  to  which  these  underground  workers  could  be  subjected. 
The  mines  swallowed  up  children  at  an  age  when  they  could  not  even  have 
been  admitted  to  school  and  threw  them  back  upon  the  pauper  rates  of  the 
parish  at  an  age  when  they  should  have  been  in  the  full  vigor  of  manhood. 

The  work  of  the  mines  was  appallingly  difficult.  The  miner  was 
obliged  to  descend  deep  shafts,  often  requiring  an  hour  for  descent  and 
ascent,  and  to  work  eleven,  tuclve,  even  fourteen  hours  and  more  at  the 
most  arduous  labor  and  under  the  most  atrocious  sanitary  conditions.  The 
mines  of  those  days  were  inadequately  ventilated.  The  minor  worked  i :i 
an  atmosphere  deficient  in  oxygen  and  full  of  dust,  powder.  Mrmko,  sr.lphnr 
and  carbonic  acid  gas.  Xo  wonder  that  he  aged  rapidly  ar.d  that  at  thirty- 
five  or  forty  he  was  cast  aside,  dismissed  from  his  employment.  The  excess- 
ive work  in  such  environment  by  men  alternately  exposed  to  the  torrid  heat 
of  the  mines  and  the  cold  and  damp  of  the  outer  air.  induced  consumption 
as  well  as  other  affections  of  the  lungs,  heart,  and  stomach.  The  living  con- 
ditions of  the  men  were  as  evil  as  their  working  conditions.  The  miner 
lived  in  squalid  huts  or  huddled  together  in  barracks,  in  one  instance  fif'y 
six  men  and  boys  sleeping  in  one  Iarge-M/ed  n^m. 

The  men  employed  at  hewing  coal  were  j>ractin!lv  serfs,  attache. I  ;  < 
the  mine,  and.  as  serfs,  \\crc  cvr>]"i!c  1  to  I'M-  M'lcnnost   l!n;:t.     The  !" 
were  obliged  to  engage  themselves  for  a  year  and  r  t'l.'t  i»e:i. 


30  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

not  allowed  to  work  for  any  other  mine  owner.  The  mine  owner,  for  his 
part,  however,  did  not  guarantee  them  any  particular  amount  of  work,  or, 
indeed,  any  work  at  all.  Any  breach  of  this  unequal  contract  was  harshly 
punished  by  justices  of  the  peace,  who  were  either  mine  owners  themselves 
or  relatives  or  pliant  tools  of  mine  owners.  The  miner  who  sought  em- 
ployment from  any  one  except  the  mine  owner  to  whom  he  was  hired  was 
summarily  sent  to  jail  or  to  the  treadmill.  The  abuses  which  have  always 
characterized  the  employment  of  men  in  lonely  places,  the  truck  store,  in- 
frequent payment,  withheld  wages,  company  houses,  and  unfair  docking 
were  carried  on  openly  and  shamelessly.  Accidents  were  shockingly  fre- 
quent, and,  despite  the  manifest  and  criminal  negligence  of  the  mine  owners, 
the  resulting  deaths  were  invariably  ascribed  by  complaisant  juries  to  "the 
act  of  God"  or  the  carelessness  of  the  victim. 

The  system  bore  especially  hard  upon  the  children.  Over  one-quarter 
of  the  employees  in  the  coal  mines  were  children  or  boys  under  twenty,  and 
some  of  these  entered  the  mines  at  six,  five,  and  even  four  years  of  age. 
Nothing  could  surpass  in  horror  the  life  of  these  children  of  five  or  six,  sit- 
ting in  the  dark,  damp  passages  of  the  mines,  for  twelve  hours  at  a  stretch, 
with  no  one  to  speak  to,  nothing  to  do  to  break  the  maddening  monotony, 
nothing  to  lighten  the  black,  terrifying  solitude  save  the  occasional  opening 
or  shutting  of  a  mine  door. 

The  whole  population  of  the  mines  was  cruelly  overworked,  even 
women  not  being  immune  from  harsh  treatment.  Several  thousand 
women  and  girls  were  employed  in  the  mines,  many  of  them  engaged  at 
hauling  tubs  of  coal  over  the  narrow  and  uneven  underground  passages. 
Frequently  the  women  were  obliged  to  push  these  tubs  with  their  heads  or 
haul  them  by  a  chain  placed  around  the  neck  like  a  halter  and  passing  be- 
tween the  legs.  In  many  cases,  especially  in  the  thin  veins,  this  work  of 
pushing  and  dragging  heavy  loads  was  done  by  women  or  boys  working  on 
their  hands  and  knees. 

The  severe  strain  of  this  work  was  aggravated  by  the  conditions  under 
which  it  was  carried  on.  No  provision  was  made  for  regular  meal  times, 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  31 

and  men  ate  their  food  cold  whenever  they  could  snatch  a  chance.  The  heat 
of  the  mines  was  so  intense  that  in  some  places  men,  women,  and  children 
worked  throughout  the  whole  day  divested  of  their  clothing.  The  thirst 
produced  by  the  character  of  the  atmosphere  and  the  nature  of  the  work 
could  be  slaked  only  by  the  dirty,  lukewarm  water  underground,  and  the 
overexertion  of  the  employees  provoked  the  worst  excesses  of  drunkenness 
and  sensuality.  The  population  of  the  mining  region  became  bestialized. 
Men  and  women  worked  like  galley  slaves,  without  thought  of  a  future,  and 
without  hope  of  escape  from  the  remorseless  tyranny  of  the  mine  owners. 
It  was  not  until  the  year  1844,  when  the  miners  organized  and  for  five 
months  maintained  an  heroic  though  unsuccessful  strike,  that  a  ray  of  hope 
penetrated  into  the  gloom  of  their  life.  The  strike,  although  lost,  fastened 
the  attention  of  the  community  upon  the  utterly  horrible  conditions  prevail- 
ing underground,  and  for  the  first  time  in  their  history,  the  miners  of  the 
United  Kingdom  awoke  to  the  fact  that  they  were  men  and  not  beasts. 


CHAPTER  V 
BRITISH  LABOR  IN  SELF-DEFENSE 

Trade  Unionism  before  1760  Unimportant.  The  Growth  of  a  Common  Sentiment. 
Policy  of  the  Early  Unions.  Fruitless  Appeals  for  new  Legislation  for  Workingmen. 
Repeal  of  the  Old  Laws  in  1813  and  1814.  Persecution  of  the  Trade  Unions.  Savagery 
of  the  Courts.  Imprisonment  and  Deportation  for  Unionists.  Result — Greater 
Secrecy  and  Intensified  Bitterness.  Repeal  of  Conspiracy  Laws.  The  First  Waves  of 
Unionism.  Recession.  National  Revolutionary  Unionism  in  1834.  Farm  Laborers 
Unionized.  Unions  of  Women.  Robert  Owen.  The  Hope  of  a  Universal  Strike.  Per- 
secution of  the  Unions.  Defeat  and  Apathy.  The  End  of  the  First  Struggle. 

IT  is  indicative  of  the  lack  of  effective  organization  of  the  workingmen 
of  those  clays  that  the  first  impulse  toward  improvement  of  factory 
conditions  came  from  members  of  the  aristocracy  and  of  the  middle  class, 
rather  than  from  the  workingmen  themselves.  This  legislation  consisted 
of  laws  limiting  the  age  at  which  children  could  be  employed,  the  hours  of 
work  and  the  times  of  work  of. women  and  children,  and  providing  for  the 
health  and  safety  of  the  toilers.  Although  the  unionists  felt  the  evil  of 
the  new  conditions,  they  had  not  as  yet  learned  the  remedy,  nor  were  they 
in  a  position  to  apply  it  had  they  known.  Until  1824  trade  unionism  was 
unlawful,  hence  weak,  and  the  bill  for  legalizing  the  formation  of  trade 
organizations  was  in  that  year  carried  through  Parliament  without  the  sup- 
port and  almost  without  the  knowledge  of  the  unionists.  Subsequently, 
however,  the  unionists  aided,  and  eventually  assumed  the  leadership  in,  the 
agitation  for  the  improvement  of  factory  and  mining  conditions. 

Trade  unions  in  the  sense  of  "continuous  associations  of  wage  earners 
for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  or  improving  the  conditions  of  their  employ- 
ment''1 existed  in  England  since  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century, 

1  This  definition,  as  much  of  the  historical  matter  in  this  and  the  succeeding  chap- 
ters, has  been  taken  from  "The  History  of  Trade  Unionism,"  by  Sidney  and  Beatrice 
Webb.  This  book,  as  well  as  "Industrial  Democracy,"  by  the  same  authors,  is  a  veri- 
table storehouse  of  information  upon  the  subject  of  trade  unionism,  especially  in  Great 
Britain. 

(32) 


hii>\i\^    I.    KiM> 

<  irneral  Secretary  ol  llic  Amalgamated  \Vi>odwoikrrs  Ind  rnalional  I  nionul  Ainrricti 
1-ifth  Vice- President  of  (he  American  Knlrration  <>f  Labor 


DENIS  A.   HAYES 

President  of  the  Glass  Bottle  Blowers'  Association  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  ; 
Sixth  Vice-President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  33 

although  their  vital  importance  in  the  economic  world  was  not  felt  prior  to 
the  year  1760.  Long  before  that  time,  unions  of  journeymen  were  to  be 
found  in  the  building  trades  and  among  such  artisans  as  tailors,  wool- 
workers,  silk  weavers,  and  gold-beaters,  where  the  extensive  organization 
of  the  industry  or  the  cost  of  materials  or  other  capital,  created  a  class  of 
men  who  permanently  remained  wage  earners.  With  the  separation  of  the 
man  from  the  machine,  however,  and  the  creation  of  a  special  capitalist  or 
machine-owning  class,  trade  unionism  rapidly  increased ;  and  this  movement 
was  greatly  accelerated  by  the  assemblage  in  factories  and  towns  of  large 
bodies  of  men  engaged  in  similar  trades  and  their  consequent  awakening  to 
a  sense  of  their  common  interests. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  industrial  revolution  and  for  a  considerable 
time  thereafter,  British  trade  unions  were  in  theory  and  practice  reactionary. 
They  constantly  appealed  to  Parliament  to  enforce  obsolete  laws  limiting 
apprenticeship  and  permitting  justices  of  the  peace  to  determine  wages. 
The  labor  organizations  felt  that  the  new  conditions  were  their  destruction, 
and  they  pleaded  with  Parliament  to  put  a  stop  to  the  changes  of  the  time 
and  to  reestablish  by  law  the  conditions  of  life  and  labor  existing  before 
the  introduction  of  machinery.  In  this  endeavor  the  workingmcn  were, 
prior  to  the  year  1756,  not  entirely  unsuccessful,  and  many  laws  were  placed 
upon  the  statute  books  in  the  hope  of  remedying  the  evils  created  by  the  new 
methods  of  production.  After  1756  or  thereabouts  the  attitude  of  the  gov- 
ernment underwent  a  change.  The  old  statutes  proved  unenforceable,  and 
the  logic  of  circumstances  drove  Parliament  into  a  practical  policy  of  "hands 
off."  This  theory,  which  was  based  upon  the  idea  that  industry  would  de- 
velop more  harmoniously  without  interference  from  the  national  legisla- 
ture, was  recn forced  in  1/76  by  the  appearance  of  a  book  written  by  Adam 
Smith,  entitled  "The  Wealth  of  Xations."  in  which  the  doctrine  of  "let- 
alone,"  or  "no  interference."  \\as  propounded  as  the  correct  relation  of  gov- 
ernment to  industry.  I  rom  1700  to  i£i.{.  ho\ycvcr.  the  unions  did  no; 
desist  from  attempts  to  prosecute  employers  under  the  old  laws  or  to  secure 
new  laws  of  greater  stringency.  These  efforts  were  vigorously  and  succcss- 
3 


34  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

fully  resisted  by  the  employers.  The  laws  in  question  were  suspended 
during  a  series  of  years,  and,  finally,  in  1813,  the  statute  empowering  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  to  fix  wages  was  suddenly  and  completely  repealed.  In 
the  following  year,  despite  vigorous  protests  from  the  working  classes,  the 
law  limiting  the  number  of  apprentices  was  also  removed  from  the  statute 
book. 

But  the  principle  of  "let-alone"  did  not  work  both  ways.  From  1814 
employers  were  granted  entire  immunity  from  burdensome  laws,  but  the 
same  privilege  was  not  extended  to  the  workmen.  The  employers  were 
given  complete  freedom  of  contract  and  were  empowered  to  buy  labor  in 
their  own  way,  but  the  workmen  were  refused  the  similar  right  to  sell  their 
labor  as  they  saw  fit.  The  British  courts  declared  all  combinations  of  work- 
ingmen  illegal,  in  restraint  of  trade,  and  in  violation  of  the  common  as  well 
as  of  the  statute  law.  The  courts  resurrected  an  obsolete  law  against  con- 
spiracy passed  some  five  centuries  before,  the  statute  entitled  "Who  be  Con- 
spirators and  Who  be  Champertors/'  and  another  law  passed  in  1549,  di- 
rected against  the  maintenance  of  "trust"  prices  and  styled  "Bill  of  Con- 
spiracies of  Victuallers  and  Craftsmen." 

The  use  against  trade  unions  of  the  common  law,  as  well  as  of  these 
old  statutes,  was  an  innovation  in  those  days,  just  as  the  application  of  the 
injunction  to  labor  conflicts  has  proved  to  be  in  these.  During  the  eigh- 
teenth century  it  had  not  been  believed,  or  at  least  not  clearly  understood, 
that  the  courts  would  hold  trade  unions  illegal;  and  the  hostile  employers 
appealed  to  Parliament  for  new  legislation  instead  of  applying  to  the  courts 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  old.  To  these  demands  of  employers,  Parlia- 
ment lent  an  attentive  ear.  From  time  to  time,  during  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury special  laws  were  passed  against  various  individual  unions,  and  in  1/99 
and  1800  general  combination  laws  were  enacted  which  rendered  illegal  the 
formation  of  trade  organizations  or  the  performance  of  any  act  for  which 
they  were  created. 

Laws,  however,  be  they  ever  so  stringent,  cannot  suppress  a  popular 
movement  and  unionism  survived  all  attacks  upon  it.  The  trial  of  trade 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  35 

unionists  in  those  days  was  carried  on  with  barbarous  and  almost  inconceiv- 
able savagery.  Both  judge  and  jury  were  recruited  from  the  same  class  in 
society  as  the  employer,  and  no  leniency  was  extended  to  the  "troublesome 
fellows"  who  had  the  hardihood  to  join  labor  organizations.  In  the  harsh 
administration  of  a  cruel  law,  the  judges  failed  to  temper  injustice  with 
mercy.  Even  where  the  union  had  been  recognized  by  the  employer,  a  vin- 
dictive prosecution  might  ensue.  In  1798,  five  journeymen  printers,  who 
had  been  invited  by  their  employers  to  meet  with  them  and  discuss  griev- 
ances, were  upon  their  arrival  arrested  and  were  subsequently  tried,  con- 
victed, and  sentenced  to  penal  servitude.  The  efforts  of  striking  working- 
men  were  crippled  from  the  outset,  and  unions  were  obliged  to  enter  each 
struggle  with  their  hands  bound.  The  combination  laws  as  they  worked 
out  in  the  textile  industries  were  described  as  a  tremendous  millstone  round 
the  neck  of  the  local  artisan  "which  had  depressed  and  debased  him  to  the 
earth :  every  act  which  he  has  attempted,  every  measure  that  he  has  devised 
to  keep  up  or  raise  his  wages,  he  has  been  told  was  illegal :  the  whole  force  of 
the  civil  power  and  influence  of  his  district  has  been  exerted  against  him  be- 
cause he  was  acting  illegally:  the  magistrates,  acting,  as  they  believed,  in 
unison  with  the  views  of  the  legislature,  to  check  and  keep  down  wages  and 
combination,  regarded,  in  almost  every  instance,  every  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  artisan  to  ameliorate  his  situation  or  support  his  station  in  society  as 
a  species  of  sedition  and  resistance  of  the  government :  every  committee  or 
active  man  among  them  was  regarded  as  a  turbulent,  dangerous  instigator, 
whom  it  was  necessary  to  watch  and  crush  if  possible."1 

Notwithstanding  persecution  and  endeavors  to  disrupt  them,  the  unions, 
especially  among  the  skilled  workmen,  remained  intact.  This  was  due  to 
the  inefficient  administration  of  the  laws  in  England  and  to  llic  further  fact 
that  in  times  when  there  were  no  strikes,  there  was  little  incentive  to  em- 
ployers to  persecute  unions.  Attacks  were  made  upon  labor  organizations 
whenever  a  strike  was  threatened,  but  associations  of  h.-ntcrs,  coopers,  cur- 

1  This  is  quoted  from  an  anonymous  pamphlet  printed   in    iF.?}.  the  citation  bring 
reproduced  in  "The  History  of  Trade  Unionism,"  by  Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb. 


36  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

riers,  compositors,  shipwrights,  and  other  workmen  survived  all  assaults  and 
continued  to  maintain  their  organization.  Persecution,  however,  resulted, 
as  it  invariably  does,  in  making  organization  more  secret,  discipline  more 
rigid,  and  treatment  of  outsiders  more  harsh  and  arbitrary.  In  many  unions 
no  one  knew  who  were  the  leaders,  and  men  were  expected  to  strike  and  did 
strike  as  the  result  of  a  hint  and  without  a  word  being  spoken.  In  1812 
forty  thousand  weavers  struck  upon  a  signal  because  the  employers  would 
not  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  courts  upon  the  matter  of  wages ;  but  the 
leaders  of  this  movement  were  cast  into  prison  for  the  crime  of  combination, 
and,  as  a  consequence,  the  strike  collapsed. 

During  the  years  which  followed  the  Napoleonic  Wars,  especially  from 
1816  to  1819,  the  depression  in  trade  and  the  consequent  fall  in  wages  pro- 
voked a  large  number  of  strikes,  and  repressive  measures  were  again  carried 
out  with  unheard  of  severity.  The  attack  on  workingmen  led,  as  has  fre- 
quently been  the  case,  to  an  assault  upon  the  liberties  of  the  people  at  large. 
In  1819  the  so-called  "Six  Acts"  were  passed,  which  effectually  suppressed 
public  meetings,  permitted  magistrates  to  search  for  arms,  strengthened  the 
law  against  seditious  libels,  and  placed  an  excessive  stamp  tax  upon  all  pub- 
lications owned  by  or  friendly  to  labor  organizations.  These  repressive 
measures  aroused  an  intense  hostility  among  the  working  classes,  and  this 
bitterness  was  responsible  for  many  ill-advised  strikes  and  indiscreet  acts 
committed  by  trade  unionists  after  the  repeal  of  the  combination  laws. 

It  was  not  until  1824  that  the  law  against  combinations  was  repealed. 
This  victory  for  the  working  classes  was  due  in  large  measure  to  the  inde- 
fatigable labors  and  remarkable  astuteness  of  Francis  Place,  a  retired  master 
tailor  and  one  of  the  most  successful  political  managers  of  the  age.  After 
ten  years  of  work  and  agitation,  he  secured  the  appointment  of  a  Parlia- 
mentary committee  of  inquiry  and  caused  to  be  introduced  a  bill  repealing 
the  combination  laws  and  legalizing  trade  unions.  Through  the  astonishing 
address  and  skillful  manoeuvring  of  Place  and  his  coadjutors,  this  bill  was 
steered  through  Parliament  without  debate  and  without  division.  The  re- 
sult was  instantaneous.  Trade  unions,  suddenly  legalized,  sprang  up  in  all 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  37 

parts  of  the  country,  and  employers  awoke  to  the  fact  that  almost  without 
their  knowledge  these  organizations  had  been  given  the  sanction  of  the  law. 
In  the  following  year,  attempts  were  made  to  reenact  the  old  combination 
laws,  but  by  this  time  organized  labor  was  aroused,  and  the  efforts  of  the 
opponents  of  trade  unionism  were  fruitless.  The  unions  were  freed  for  all 
lime. 

Unfortunately,  many  of  the  organizations  which  sprang  up  after  the 
repeal  of  the  combination  laws,  were  without  experience,  and,  as  a  result, 
unwise  and  occasionally  arrogant.  Their  growth  was  greater  than  their 
success.  Following  the  legalization  of  the  trade  unions  there  came  a  serious 
commercial  depression  lasting  from  i8j5  to  1829,  and,  as  a  consequence, 
the  new  unions  failed  in  their  efforts  to  improve  materially  the  conditions 
of  labor.  A  feeling  of  discouragement  took  possession  of  the  working 
classes,  and  the  commercial  depression  was  marked  by  apathy  on  the  part  of 
workmen  toward  the  organizations.  The  factory  system  extended  rapidly 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  England ;  the  oppression  of  working- 
men  continued  practically  unabated;  the  strikes  of  the  ill-organized  unions 
were  largely  unsuccessful,  and  the  revolutionary  spirit,  then  so  prevalent  in 
France,  crossed  the  Channel  and  found  its  way  into  England.  During  the 

••  o 

succeeding  years  the  trade  unions  became  imbued  with  political  and  revo- 
lutionary aspirations,  while  the  trade  policy  was  more  and  more  shoved 
into  the  background. 

The  new  spirit  of  semi-political  organization  of  wage  earners  mani- 
fested itself  in  the  demand  for  a  union  of  all  workmen,  irrespective  of  tr.idc.. 
and  extending  throughout  llie  country.     As  a  result,  in  1830,  the  National 
Association  for  the  Protection  of  Labour  was  organized,  its  members  con 
sisting  largely  of  textile  workers,  moldcrs,  blacksmiths,  mechanics,  and  mis 
ullaneous  laborers.     Despite    a    number   of    defections,  this    organization 
spread  rapidly  among  coal  miners,  potters,  \\ool  workers,  and  others;  and 
within  a  short  time  it  claimed  a    mcniljcrship    of   one    hundred    thousand. 
But  the  union  was  inherently  weak,  incapable  of  solving  the  problems  with 


38  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

which  it  was  confronted,  and  within  a  few  years  it  had  declined  and  disap- 
peared. 

During  this  period,  however,  other  large  organizations  were  being 
formed  upon  more  permanent  lines.  The  cotton  spinners  and  textile 
workers  in  general,  the  potters  and  the  members  of  building  trades  were 
rapidly  organizing  in  many  parts  of  the  country.  The  message  of  these 
new  organizations,  composed  of  men  who,  for  many  years,  had  been  re- 
pressed, was  not  always  the  soft  answer  that  turneth  away  wrath.  "We 
consider,"  so  runs  a  proclamation  of  the  Builders'  Union  to  the  employers, 
"that  as  you  have  not  treated  our  rules  with  the  deference  you  ought  to 
have  done,  we  consider  you  highly  culpable  and  deserving  of  being  severely 
chastised."  The  employers  were  equally  arrogant.  To  all  union  de- 
mands they  replied  by  insisting  that  the  men,  before  securing  work  or  re- 
entering  upon  employment,  should  forswear  all  present  and  future  allegi- 
ance to  trade  unions.  The  promise  not  to  join  a  union  was  called  the  "doc- 
ument," and  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  presentation  of  a  document 
accompanied  a  number  of  labor  disputes. 

Notwithstanding  the  failure  of  the  National  Association  for  the  Pro- 
tection of  Labour,  an  attempt  to  form  a  similar  organization  was  made  in 
1833;  and  in  the  following  year  the  Grand  National  Consolidated  Trades 
Union  came  into  being.  This  organization  grew  as  probably  no  union  or 
federation  ever  grew  before  or  since,  Within  a  few  weeks  half  a  million 
workers,  it  was  claimed,  became  enrolled,  and  a  fever  for  organization 
spread  through  all  the  working  class  world.  Common  laborers  and  farm 
hands  were  swept  into  the  union,  and  store  clerks,  chimney  sweeps,  and 
many  grades  of  unskilled  and  irregular  workers  became  members. 
Women,  too,  were  rapidly  organized.  The  central  idea  of  the  union  was 
crudely  socialistic,  it  being  proposed  to  secure  for  the  workingmen  posses- 
sion of  the  means  of  production,  though  by  other  methods  than  those  con- 
templated by  the  socialistic  parties  of  to-day.  The  working  class  was  still 
disfranchised,  and  the  government  was  so  corrupt  and  non-representative 
that  little  was  to  be  hoped  by  workingmen  from  an  extension  of  its  func- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  39 

tions.  The  plan  of  the  trade  unionists,  therefore,  was  not  to  work  through 
the  state,  but  to  secure  to  the  workers  in  each  particular  trade  the  capital  and 
machinery  of  that  trade.  The  plans  of  the  organization,  however,  were  not 
consummated,  and  its  ideals  remained  ideals.  The  panacea  of  the  laboring 
class  was  sought  not  in  the  use  of  the  ballot  or  in  free  education,  but  in  a 
universal  strike  of  all  the  workers  throughout  the  Kingdom.  It  is  needless 
to  say  that  this  universal  strike  did  not  materialize.  Its  possibility  was 
never  seriously  entertained  by  the  skilled  laborers,  and  its  success  was  des- 
paired of  from  the  beginning.  The  Grand  National  Union  accomplished 
but  little.  It  lost  its  first  strikes  and  before  long  became  of  no  importance 
or  moment  in  the  trade  union  world. 

Although  the  combination  laws  had  been  repealed  in  1824  and  1825. 
the  employers  had  by  no  means  reached  the  end  of  their  devices  lor  invoking, 
the  law  against  workingmen,  and  employees  could  still  be  indicted  for  sim- 
ply notifying  their  employers  that  a  strike  was  imminent.  Picketing  in 
almost  any  form  was  a  criminal  offense,  and  men  were  punished  under  the 
common  law  for  the  heinous  offense  of  leaving  their  work  unfinished.  Any 
charge  was  good  enough  against  a  striker  and  any  distortion  of  the  law 
valid  against  a  unionist.  Following  an  ancient  custom  the  unions  admitted 
members  under  oath ;  and  consequently  an  old  law  against  the  administra- 
tion of  seditious  oaths  was  pressed  into  service.  In  the  Dorchester  case,  in 
which  an  attempt  was  made  to  organize  the  agricultural  laborers,  the  leaders 
were  arrested  and  tried,  and  although  there  had  been  no  intention  or  inti- 
mation of  outrage  or  even  a  presentation  of  grievances,  the  men  were  con- 
victed according  to  "due  process  of  law"  for  administering  an  oath  and 
were  deported.  The  persecution  of  the  unionists  was  found  to  be  effica- 
cious in  putting  down  strikes,  and  recourse  was  had  in  those  days,  as  in 
these,  to  all  the  subtleties  and  perversions  of  the  law  in  order  to  stamp  out 
the  "odious"  doctrines  of  trade  unionism. 

While  the  unions  in  1834  increased  their  membership  to  an  un- 
precedented extent,  they  were  still  not  sufficiently  strong  to  win  substantial 
victories  in  their  conflicts  \\ith  capital.  Some  victories,  it  is  true,  were  won, 


40  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

but  the  newly  organized  trades  were  not  in  a  condition  to  struggle  advan- 
tageously, and  most  of  their  members  had  too  little  experience  of  trade 
unionism  to  undertake  the  arduous  task  of  carrying  a  strike  to  a  successful 
finish.  If,  during  the  good  times  following  1834,  many  strikes  were  lost, 
the  failure  of  the  unions  in  the  lean  years  from  1837  t°  1842  was  even  more 
apparent.  Politically,  the  unionists  were  disappointed  in  not  securing  the 
franchise  when  in  1832  this  privilege  was  extended  to  the  middle  classes; 
and  the  success  of  the  Liberal  party  over  the  Conservative  was  of  no  advan- 
tage to  workingmen.  It  was  found  that  at  this  time  the  Liberals,  represent- 
ing the  great  manufacturers,  were  even  more  hostile  toward  labor  unions 
than  had  been  the  Conservatives,  representing  the  landed  gentry.  The  am- 
bitious plans  of  the  unions  and  their  hopes  and  aspirations  for  a  reorganized 
society  retarded  their  real  internal  development.  The  Grand  National  Union 
had  striven  toward  productive  cooperation,  but  nothing  came  of  it.  True,  a 
few  labor  bazaars  were  opened,  where  goods  were  exchanged  according  to 
the  labor  cost,  and  attempts  were  made,  and  for  thirty  years  sporadically  re- 
peated, to  compete  with  employers  by  means  of  cooperative  factories.  A 
feeling  of  apathy  toward  the  legitimate  aims  of  trade  unionism  manifested 
itself,  and  while  the  skilled  trades  maintained  their  organization  and  other 
unions  continued  to  exist  in  skeleton  form,  membership  declined  and  for 
several  years  remained  below  the  level  of  1834.  Many  of  the  men  threw 
themselves  into  the  revolutionary  Chartist  movement  in  the  hope  of  securing 
industrial  reforms  through  political  action,  but  for  the  most  part  the  unions 
in  their  official  capacity  held  aloof.  Thus  within  twenty  years  of  the  emanci- 
pation of  Irade  unionism  from  the  burden  of  the  combination  laws,  the 
friends  of  labor  had  begun  to  despair  of  a  peaceable  escape  from  the  misery 
which  everywhere  prevailed ;  and  to  the  leaders  of  that  day,  the  political 
skies  of  England  seemed  to  be  tinged  with  the  blood  of  a  coming  upheaval. 


CHAPTER  VI 
MODERN  TRADE  UNIONISM  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN 

Modern  Trade  Union  Growth  begins  in  i8.jj.  Greater  Stability.  Growth  "f 
National  Unions.  Greater  Strength  and  Consciousness  of  Unions.  Miners'  Strike  «.f 
1844.  Financial  Policy.  The  Lockout  of  1852.  "Presenting  the  Document."  Pros- 
perity. Steady  Development.  Permanent  Trade  Councils.  Legal  Persecution.  Par- 
liament Inquires.  Victory  for  the  Unions.  Legalization.  Unionists  and  the  Criminal 
Law.  The  Era  of  GooJ  Feeling.  The  Crisis  of  1875.  Lockouts.  The  Old  Unionism 
and  the  New.  The  Great  Dock  Strike.  Present  Position  of  Unionism  in  England. 
The  Employers'  Liability  Act  of  1897.  The  Taff  Vale  Decision  of  1902. 

WHAT  is  known  as  the  typical  modern  trade  union  has  developed 
largely  since  the  year  1842.  Prior  to  that  time  the  British  trade, 
unions  were  more  or  less  unstable  bodies,  oscillating  between  economic  and 
political  ideals  and  without  fixed,  conscious  aims.  To  a  large  extent  they 
were  local  in  their  scope  and  temporary  in  their  nature,  and  the  organization 
of  such  federations  as  existed  was  loose  and  fluctuating.  From  1842,  how- 
ever, the  unions  developed  internally,  the  local  bodies  growing  into  organi- 
zations of  national  scope  and  becoming  more  powerful  and  responsible. 

It  was  alxHit  the  year  1843  that  the  unions  first  recovered  from  the  de- 
pression which  followed  the  great  advance  of  the  preceding  decade.  In  that 
jear  the  Potters'  Union  was  reestablished,  and  immediately  afterwards  the 
Cotton  Spinners'  Organization  began  to  embrace  the  greater  part  of  the  in- 
dustry of  the  Lancashire  towns.  The  Miners'  Association  «>f  (Ireal  Britain 
and  Ireland  also  dates  from  this  period,  and  the  strikes  \\hich  followed  re- 
sulted in  an  elevation  of  the  miners  out  of  the  condition  of  practical  serfage 
to  which  the  truck  system  and  the  system  of  yearly  hiring*;  had  reduced 
them. 

The  time  was  propitious  for  the  advance  of  trade  unions.  The  genera- 
tions following  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  Wars  had  been  marked  by  a 
series  of  commercial  depressions  hitherto  unknown  in  the  history  of  British 

uu 


42  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

trade;  but  from  1846  on  the  enormous  expansion  of  English  commerce,  the 
conquest  of  foreign  markets,  the  rapid  extension  of  railways,  and  the  won- 
derful development  of  manufacturing  created  a  general  prosperity,  which 
was  reflected  in  the  condition  of  the  workingmen.  During  this  period, 
from  1842  to  1900,  a  period  practically  coeval  with  the  reign  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria, British  labor  and  British  trade  unionism  made  gigantic  strides.  The 
small,  local  unions  of  the  early  part  of  the  century  expanded  into  national  or- 
ganizations; the  seat  of  authority  passed  from  the  local  to  the  central  body; 
the  insurance  and  benefit  features  of  the  unions  were  developed  and  widely 
extended,  and  organization  upon  a  solid,  permanent  basis  spread  from  the 
skilled  to  the  semi-skilled  and  unskilled  trades.  During  this  .period  labor 
organization  as  well  as  most  of  the  purposes  and  policies  of  trade  unionism, 
received  the  definite  sanction  of  the  lawr,  and  unionists  came  to  be  regarded 
not  as  outlaws,  but  as  responsible  and  law-abiding  subjects.  The  working- 
man  wras  vested  \vith  the  franchise,  and  the  schools  were  gradually  opened 
to  his  children.  Under  the  guidance  of  the  unions,  the  workingmen  success- 
fully strove  for  higher  wages,  shorter  hours,  protection  to  life  and  health, 
regulation  of  the  labor  of  children  and  women,  and,  in  general,  for  the  im- 
provement and  betterment  of  the  conditions  of  work  and  life.  Despite  re- 
cessions and  retrogressions,  the  membership,  prestige,  and  power  of  labor 
unions  grew,  and  the  close  of  the  century  found  trade  unionism  in  England 
an  established,  recognized,  and  beneficent  institution. 

This  development  of  modern  British  trade  unionism  may  be  said  to 
have  begun  about  the  year  1842.  Prior  to  that  date  the  unions  were,  on  the 
whole,  without  fixed  ideals,  and  the  modern  spirit  of  trade  unionism,  a  com- 
bination of  aggression  and  conciliation,  appears  to  belong  to  the  latter 
period.  The  growing  consciousness  of  power  and  self-worth  was  evidenced 
by  the  heroic  but  unsuccessful  strike  organized  in  1844  by  the  Miners'  Asso- 
ciation. This  was  one  of  the  most  remarkable  contests  in  the  history  of 
labor  and  a  notable  instance  of  the  power  of  miners  when  organized  to  resist 
oppression.  At  this  time,  also,  renewed  attempts  were  made  to  form  feder- 
ations, and  in  1845  the  National  Association  of  United  Trades  for  the  Pro- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  43 

tection  of  Labour  was  created.  This  association,  which  remained  intact  for 
fifteen  years,  did  not  seek  to  supersede  the  old  unions,  but  to  bring  them 
together  for  common  action.  A  great  change  had  come  over  the  spirit  of 
trade  unionism  since  1834,  and  the  new  federation,  unlike  its  predecessors, 
was  extremely  conservative.  The  National  Association  opposed  recourse 
to  indiscriminate  strikes  and  was  inclined  to  seek  a  good  understanding  with 
employers  rather  than  to  antagonize  them  at  every  point.  The  organization 
proclaimed  a  policy  of  avoiding  politics,  except  where  certain  definite  labor 
aims  were  involved. 

During  this  period  the  unions  were  becoming  broader  in  scope  and 
more  representati\e  and  responsible:  but  the  hostility  of  employers  did  not 
abate.  Indeed,  the  opponents  of  trade  unions  made  the  very  improvement 
in  union  organization  an  excuse  for  their  antagonism.  Hostile  employers 
now  claimed  that  they  did  not  object  to  local  unions,  but  that  they  opposed 
all  national  organizations,  since  the  latter  exercised  tyranny  over  labor  and 
set  limits  to  its  freedom.  During  this  period  employers  answered  strikes 
by  legal  proceedings  and  by  general  lockouts  and  endeavored  to  force  upon 
the  unionists  the  universally  odious  "document."  The  employers  in  the 
London  engineering  trades  met  the  formation  of  the  Amalgamated  Society 
of  Engineers  and  its  protests  against  piecework  and  systematic  overtime 
by  a  flat  refusal  to  arbitrate  or  even  to  consider  the  propositions.  In  1852 
they  locked  out  the  whole  trade  and  persisted  in  the  presentation  of  the  "doc- 
ument," and  in  April,  the  men  were  obliged  to  submit  and  to  return  to  work- 
after  a  three  months'  struggle. 

The  Amalgamated  Society  of  Engineers,  which  <urvivrd  this  lockout 
.'•.ml  prospered  thereafter,  was  the  prototype  of  a  large  number  of  organisa- 
tions ir.  Eugh;:d  during  this  generation.  It  was  created  by  the  amalgama- 
tion of  a  number  of  rival  unions  in  various  brandies  of  engineering  work 
and  was  organized  upon  a  national  basis.  The  earlier  trade  unions  had  been 
based  upon  the  idea  of  a  number  of  completely  separate  or  loosely  combined 
local  clubs,  each  exercising  a  large  measure  of  individual  freedom,  control- 
liner  its  own  funds  and  actincr  on  its  own  initiative  and  in  its  <»wn  behalt. 


44  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

The  Amalgamated  Engineers  represented  an  advance  beyond  this  primitive 
form  of  organization.  The  new  union  was  not  only  built  upon  national 
lines,  but  the  central  government  was  strengthened  at  the  expense  of  the 
locals,  and  the  power  of  these  smaller  groups  to  declare  strikes  and  involve 
the  whole  body  of  engineers  in  national  conflicts  was  effectively  restricted. 
The  union  built  up  an  admirable,  though  somewhat  cumbersome,  system  of 
financial  management,  preserving  the  initiative  of  the  locals,  but  giving  the 
real  control  to  the  central  executive.  The  dues  were  a  shilling  (25^)  a 
week;  and  with  peace  and.  the  growth  in  membership,  the  funds  of  the  or- 
ganization steadily  amounted  to  a  hitherto  unknown  total.  The  wealth 
of  the  organization,  however,  and  its  resulting  strength  aroused  bitter  ani- 
mosity on  the  part  of  many  employers.  Those  who  were  hostile  to  the  union 
inveighed  against  its  benefit  features,  declaring  them  to  be  a  fraudulent  de- 
vice for  diverting  the  savings  of  workmen  from  their  real  purpose,  the  pro- 
tection against  old  age,  death,  sickness,  and  accidents,  and  using  them  as  a 
means  of  breeding  discontent  and  subsidizing  strikes  and  idleness. 

These  verbal  attacks,  however,  availed  no  more  than  had  the  persecu- 
tions of  former  years.  The  union  grew  and  prospered,  its  membership  and 
wealth  increased,  and  through  its  policy  of  courting  publicity  and  even  ad- 
vertisement, it  was  enabled  to  assume  a  prominent  position  among  the  chief 
labor  organizations  of  the  time.  The  carpenters,  tailors,  compositors,  and 
members  of  other  trades  organized  upon  similar  principles,  and  in  the  years 
from  1852  to  1859,  the  development  of  these  organizations  was  steady  and 
continuous.  In  fact,  this  period  of  internal  development  of  trade  unions 
was  also  an  era  of  good  feeling  between  labor  and  capital,  and  it  was  con- 
fidently predicted  in  many  quarters  that  conciliation  and  arbitration  would 
take  the  place  of  industrial  conflicts  and  that  in  the  course  of  a  short  time 
strikes  would  practically  cease  to  exist. 

These  exuberant  hopes,  however,  were  doomed  to  be  shattered.  From 
1859  there  occurred  a  series  of  strikes  and  lockouts,  in  which  the  unions  were 
for  the  most  part  worsted.  The  industrial  depression  of  the  years  follow- 
ing the  crisis  of  1857  threw  many  men  out  of  work,  and  lockouts  became 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  45 

frequent  and  general.  In  the  year  1859,  twenty-four  thousand  men  in  the 
building  trades  of  the  metropolis  were  suddenly  locked  out  because  of  a  de- 
mand for  shorter  hours,  the  ensuing  contest  resulting  in  victory  for  neither 
side.  Even  where  the  unions  were  defeated,  there  was  no  permanent  loss 
of  strength.  The  process  of  gradually  building  up  the  internal  structure  of 
the  organizations  continued.  At  the  same  time,  and  more  especially  from 
1867  to  1875,  the  unions  became  more  generally  victorious  in  the  political 
field.  It  is  during  this  period  that  the  complete  legalization  of  trade  unions 
was  secured.  From  1858  to  1867  permanent  trade  councils  had  been  estab- 
lished in  the  leading  cities  of  England,  and  these  councils,  acting  in  coop- 
eration with  brilliant  volunteers  from  other  classes  in  society,  threw  them- 
selves into  a  movement  for  the  reform  of  the  labor  laws  as  well  as  for  the 
l>etterment  of  the  conditions  of  work.  Largely  through  the  efforts  of  these 
men  the  Reform  Bill  of  1866,  which  conferred  the  right  of  suffrage  upon  the 
hitherto  disfranchised  workmen  of  cities,  was  placed  upon  the  statute  books. 
Another  victory  almost  equally  important  was  the  amendment  of  the  old 
law  of  master  and  servant,  under  which  the  workman  was  liable  to  bo  im- 
prisoned for  breach  of  contract  or  for  leaving  his  work  unfinished.  The 
jK)litical  activity  of  the  unionists  was  stimulated  by  the  Parliamentary 
inquiry  of  1867,  which  was  directed  against  trade  unionism,  but  resulted  in 
its  Justification  and  vindication.  The  minority  report  of  this  committee 
recommended  that  trade  unions  be  granted  the  right  to  register  and  to  secure 
legal  protection  for  their  funds  while  retaining  immunity  from  other  litiga- 
tion. This  minority  rc|>ort  further  recommended  that  no  act  should  bo 
illegal  when  committed  by  workingmen  if  not  illegal  when  committed  by 
others,  and  that  no  act  should  be  illegal  when  committed  by  a  combination 
if  not  illegal  when  committed  by  a  single  person.  In  iS'ji  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  minority  were  embodied  in  a  statute,  and  the  act  of  1X71  com- 
pletely legalizing  trade  unions  and  securing  them  from  bring  sued  was  be- 
lieved to  be  the  law  of  the  land,  until  the  House  of  Lords  interpreted  it  out 
of  existence  in  the  Taff  Yale  decision  of  io,o_>.  The  success  of  the  workmen 
at  that  time  and  later  was  due  in  no  small  measure  to  their  enfranchisement 


46  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

in  the  year  1867  and  to  the  effort  of  the  Conservative  party  to  secure  their 
votes. 

In  1871  Parliament  passed  the  Criminal  Law  Amendment  Act,  directly 
aimed  at  picketing.  By  this  time,  however,  the  unions  were  thoroughly 
aroused,  and  after  four  years  of  agitation  they  secured  in  1875  the  repeal  of 
the  law.  This  repeal  rendered  picketing,  if  unaccompanied  by  violence  or 
intimidation,  entirely  legal. 

While  Parliament  was  thus  granting  to  labor  organizations  the  full  and 
equal  protection  of  the  law,  other  reforms  and  advances  were  being  made 
through  the  efforts  of  trade  unionists.  The  coal  miners  and  cotton  spinners, 
who  were  strongly  organized  and  largely  concentrated  in  well-defined  dis- 
tricts, relied  to  a  great  extent  upon  legislation  for  the  attainment  of  their 
ends.  The  miners  secured  laws  against  the  truck  system  and  against  weigh- 
ing and  docking  abuses,  while  the  cotton  operatives  obtained  in  1874  a  fifty- 
six  and  a  half  hour  week  for  female  workers.  Other  unions,  especially  in 
the  building  trades  and  among  the  engineers,  secured  reductions  in  the 
hours  of  labor  and  a  general  improvement  in  the  conditions  of  employment. 
The  hours  of  labor  in  the  building  trades  were  reduced  to  nine,  and  a  large 
section  of  engineers  obtained  the  same  working  day  through  the  efforts  of 
a  temporary  organization  called  the  Nine  Hours'  League. 

During  this  period  the  membership  of  trade  unions  increased  rapidly 
and  continuously.  The  year  1874  was  particularly  noteworthy  by  reason 
of  the  great  number  of  accessions  to  the  ranks  of  organized  labor.  As  in 
the  movement  of  1834,  forty  years  before,  a  wave  of  trade  union  sentiment 
swept  over  the  country,  and  wage  earners  of  all  classes  formed  themselves 
into  labor  organizations.  It  was  even  attempted  at  this  time  to  unionize  the 
agricultural  laborers;  but  the  isolation  and  poverty  of  these  down-trodden 
rural  workers  prevented  them  from  overcoming  the  bitter  hostility  of  the 
farmers,  aided  by  the  clergy,  the  justices  of  the  peace,  and  even  the  army 
itself.  Toward  the  end  of  the  decade,  however,  business  everywhere  suf- 
fered a  serious  depression,  and  in  the  strikes  and  lockouts  which  resulted,  a 
number  of  the  unions  succumbed.  The  defeats  of  the  unions  were  followed 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  47 

by  reductions  in  the  rate  of  wages,  increases  in  the  hours  of  labor,  and  re- 
course to  systematic  overtime ;  but,  as  in  the  past,  trade  unionism  weathered 
the  storm.  The  organizations  wiiich  survived — and  this  was  true  of  the 
majority — suffered  in  diminished  membership,  but  the  crisis  passed  without 
permanent  injury,  and  at  its  close  labor  organizations  rapidly  regained  their 
strength,  and  within  a  few  years  were  as  active,  self-reliant,  and  formidable 
as  ever. 

The  depression  of  1878  and  the  succeeding  years  had  at  least  one  good 
result,  an  increased  self-knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  unions.  Prior  to  this 
time  trade  unionism  had  shown  a  certain  tendency  to  over-emphasize  its 
benefit  features  and  to  become  unaggressive  and  torpid.  Many  of  the 
unions  were  disposed  to  subordinate  the  proper  aims  of  labor  organizations 
to  the  ambition  of  accumulating  a  large  reserve  fund,  and  to  a  certain  extent 
at  least  the  ideals  and  philosophy  of  trade  unionism  had  been  abandoned. 
During  the  early  eighties  a  spirit  of  discontent  made  itself  felt,  however,  and 
large  sections  of  the  working  classes  protested  against  the  exclusive  and 
restrictive  policy  of  many  of  the  trade  unions.  The  terrible,  wide-spread 
poverty  of  London  and  of  many  of  the  provincial  cities  brought  forth  a  de- 
mand for  a  fuller  democratization  of  the  trade  union  movement  and  for  the 
unionizing  of  the  great  mass  of  unskilled  workers.  This  movement,  which 
was  designated  the  "new  unionism,"  held  out  as  its  ideal  the  organization  of 
unskilled  workmen  and  the  subordination  of  the  benefit  features  to  a  specific 
and  well-defined  trade  policy. 

The  spirit  of  the  new  unionism  became  particularly  marked  in  the  early 
years  of  the  eighties.  From  the  beginning  it  was  tinged  with  socialistic 
doctrines,  and  it  grew  with  the  discontent  which  especially  after  1886  be- 
came prevalent  in  Kngland.  It  was  a  time  of  depression  and  of  general 
unemployment,  and  the  drain  of  out-of-work  benefits  became  more  and  more 
severe.  Many  unions  sought  to  protect  their  funds  by  a  policy  of  retrench- 
ment and  by  dropping  members  who  were  in  arrears;  but  the  result  of  this 
action  was  merely  to  accentuate  and  increase  the  universal  distress.  The 
investigations  of  Charles  Booth  into  the  conditions  of  the  working  classes 


48  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

revealed  an  amount  of  poverty  and  degradation  undreamed  of.  "Thirty- 
two  per  cent,  of  the  whole  population  of  London  (in  some  large  districts 
over  sixty  per  cent.)  were  found  to  be  living  in  a  state  of  chronic  poverty, 
which  precluded  not  only  the  elementary  conditions  of  civilization  and  citi- 
zenship, but  was  incompatible  with  physical  health  and  industrial  efficiency." 
The  working  people  of  the  cities  were  in  a  ferment  of  excitement,  and 
parades  and  gatherings  of  the  unemployed  startled  the  whole  country.  The 
radical  element  attempted  to  secure  control  of  the  trade  unions,  finally  suc- 
ceeding in  this  endeavor  in  the  year  1890. 

The  greatest  victory  of  the  new  unionism  was  achieved  in  the  Dock 
Strike  of  1889,  one  of  the  three  or  four  most  notable  labor  conflicts  in 
history.  The  match  girls  and  gas  stokers  of  London  had  been  successful 
in  their  strikes,  owing  to  the  sympathy  of  the  public ;  and  a  strike  was  finally 
resorted  to  by  the  dockers  in  order  to  remedy  the  terrible  conditions  prevail- 
ing at  the  Port  of  London.  The  half-starved  dock  laborers  demanded  the 
abolition  of  the  subcontract  and  piece  system  and  a  minimum  wage  of  six 
pence  (12^-)  per  hour,  with  the  provision  that  they  should  be  employed  not 
less  than  four  consecutive  hours.  Upon  the  refusal  of  the  dock  owners 
to  grant  these  demands  a  strike  was  declared.  There  is  probably  no  labor 
conflict  in  history,  not  even  excepting  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  of  1902, 
in  which  the  sympathy  of  the  general  public  was  so  aroused  or  became  so 
potent.  It  seemed  as  though  nothing  short  of  a  miracle  could  have  won  a 
victory  for  the  oppressed  and  penniless  men,  who  were  but  recently  and 
incompletely  organized.  The  leading  men  of  England,  men  from  all  classes 
and  ranks  of  life,  subscribed  large  sums  of  money ;  the  labor  organizations 
throughout  the  country  contributed  generously,  and  thousands  of  pounds 
were  telegraphed  from  Australia  to  the  striking  dock  laborers.  The  pres- 
sure of  public  opinion  proved  too  strong  to  be  withstood ;  the  dock  owners 
found  themselves  facing  a  tempest  of  indignation  and  wrath,  and  the  unex- 
pected came  to  pass — the  employers  capitulated.  Thus,  the  dock  laborers 
achieved  an  unqualified  victory. 

The  astonishing  success  of  the  London    dock  workers   gave   a    great 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  49 

impetus  to  the  trade  union  movement.  The  experience  of  this  strike  proved 
conclusively  that  the  principles  of  trade  unionism  were  becoming  general 
and  that  even  the  unskilled  workmen,  were  better  able  to  organize  than  they 
had  been  a  generation  or  two  before. 

Since  1889  there  has  been  a  rapid  growth  among  the  organized  laborers 
of  the  United  Kingdom.  The  membership  of  British  and  Irish  trade  unions 
increased  rapidly  until  1892,  when  1,503,000  persons  were  enrolled,  then 
slowly  declined  until  1895,  ar|d  since  the  latter  year  has  again  mounted 
steadily.  In  IQOI  there  were  1,923,000  members,  and  at  the  present  time 
(August,  1903),  the  number  of  trade  unionists  in  the  United  Kingdom  is 
probably  in  excess  of  2,000,000.  The  actual  increase  in  the  power  of  the 
unions,  however,  has  probably  1>een  much  greater  than  that  indicated  by  the 
statistics.  There  is  always  a  large  number  of  workingmen  in  sympathy 
with  the  movement,  although  not  a  part  of  it,  and  these  men  vote  and  act 
with  the  unionists  and  follow  their  lead.  The  concentration  of  large  groups 
of  unionists  in  particular  districts  has  also  tended  to  increase  their  power 
and  their  political  and  industrial  influence. 

During  the  last  decade  the  trade  unions  of  the  United  Kingdom  have 
increased  not  only  in  membership,  but  in  stability,  pcrmnnence,  and  power. 
In  1901  the  principal  unions,  representing  only  three-fifths  of  the  total 
membership  of  the  organizations  of  the  Kingdom,  had  accumulated  funds 
amounting  to  over  twenty  iv.illioiis  of  dollars  and  were  enjoying  an  annual 
income  amounting  to  ten  millions  of  dollars.  During  the  ten  years  from 
1892  to  1901  inclusive,  the  principal  unions,  representing  only  a  fraction  of 
the  membership  of  the  Kingdom,  expended  upon  dispute  benefits,  working 
and  miscellaneous  expenses,  and  unemployed,  sick,  accident,  superannuation, 
funeral,  and  other  benefits,  the  enormous  sum  of  seventy-three  and  a  half 
millions  of  dollars.  This  period  has  also  been  marked  by  tlie  further  de- 
velopment of  labor  federation,  although  this  evolution  has  not  progressed 
as  far  in  Kngland  as  in  the  I'nitcd  States.  1  )uring  the  decade  victories  have 
been  achieved  in  the  field  of  politics,  cspcciallv  in  the  government  of  munici- 
palities. The  trade  union  has  been  successful  in  securing  from  the  London 


50  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

County  Council  and  from  a  majority  of  municipal  bodies  important  conces- 
sions in  the  matter  of  the  maintenance  of  the  union  wage  and  the  union 
working  day.  The  chief  victory  in  politics,  however,  has  probably  been  the 
Compulsory  Liability  Law  of  1897,  by  which  workingmen  in  a  large  number 
of  industries  may  receive  compensation  for  accidents.  The  Taff  Vale  de- 
cision of  1902,  which  changes  the  legal  status  of  unions,  has  temporarily 
thrown  the  movement  out  of  joint.  Although  its  full  consequences  cannot 
as  yet  be  accurately  foretold,  this  decision  must  be  recognized  as  fraught 
with  danger  to  the  orderly  and  peaceful  progress  of  trade  unionism  in  Eng- 
land. Its  first  effect  has  been  to  cause  the  unions  to  participate  more  actively 
than  formerly  in  the  political  movements  of  the  time.  Nevertheless,  British 
trade  unionism,  which  has  outlasted  so  much  persecution  and  so  many  at- 
tacks, will  hardly  fail  to  survive  this  final  assault  by  the  supreme  judicial 
tribunal  of  the  British  Empire. 


CHAPTER  VII 
LABOR  IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES 

Labour  in  i/oo  and  Labor  in  1900  Simple  Conditions  in  Colonial  Times.  Pov- 
erty. Slavery  in  the  South.  Labor  in  the  North.  Class  Distinctions.  Fixing  Wages 
by  Law.  Two  Shillings  a  Day.  The  Pay  of  Women  and  Indians.  The  Cost  of  Living. 
Poverty.  Hard  Work.  Long  Hours,  but  no  Starvation.  Indentured  Servants.  Appren- 
ticed at  Seven.  No  Labor  Unions  in  the  Colonies 

I X  the  American  colonies  land  was  plenty,  hut  money  scarce.  There 
1  were  many  acres  to  till,  but  few  men  to  till  them.  The  needs  of  the 
people  were  simple,  and  were  satisfied  in  a  large,  rough,  substantial  fashion. 
During  the  century  nnrJ  a  half  following  the  arrival  of  the  Cavaliers  in 
Virginia  and  the  stern  Puritans  in  New  England,  the  history  of  American 
labor  was  the  simple  story  of  a  conquest  of  nature  by  hardy  pioneers.  Scat- 
tered in  settlements  along  the  narrow  fringe  of  coast  line,  venturing  but  a 
few  miles  up  the  navigable  rivers,  lived  the  English,  French,  Dutch,  Swedes, 
Germans,  and  Spaniards,  the  inhabitants  of  the  America  of  that  day.  These 
sturdy  settlers  spent  their  lives  in  subduing  the  wilderness,  in  trading  with 
the  Indians  for  furs,  in  raising  tobacco,  wheat,  or  Indian  corn,  in  building 
ships,  and  in  plying  various  rude  handicrafts.  In  the  Colonial  days  there 
was  little  wealth  and  less  penury.  The  country  was  poor,  but  there  was 
not  the  sharp  contrast  between  fabulous  \\calth  and  abject  misery,  between 
the  spacious  mansions  of  the  rich  and  the  hiving  tenements  of  the  poor, 
which  is  a  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  present  time. 

Of  course,  differences  and  class  distinctions  existed,  but  the  contrast 
was  rather  one  of  station  in  life  than  of  the  means  of  enjoyment.  There 
were  even  then  rich  men  and  poor  men.  Favored  gentlemen  counted  their 
laborers  by  the  hundreds  and  their  acres  by  the  tens  of  thousand*,  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  slaves,  who  in  the  South  performed  the  hard  work  of  col- 
onization, owned  neither  lands  nor  tenements,  neither  the  clothes  on  their 

(50 


52  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

backs  nor  their  own  bodies.  But  even  the  opulent  could  find  no  other  outlet 
for  their  wealth  than  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  rude  plenty,  for  most  of  the  lux- 
uries of  even  the  poor  of  to-day  were  unattainable  to  the  wealthy  of  Colonial 
times. 

During  Colonial  days  and  for  four-score  years  under  the  Republic,  the 
labor  system  of  the  South  was  based  upon  the  institution  of  slavery.  The 
relation  of  employer  to  workman  was  not  that  of  one  freely  contracting  per- 
son to  another,  but  the  relation  of  owners  to  property.  On  the  vast  tobacco 
plantations,  stretching  for  miles  from  river  to  river,  the  owner  was  absolute 
lord  and  master  over  the  hundreds  of  black  slaves  who  worked  for  him  in 
the  field  or  served  him  in  his  household.  There  was  no  payment  of  wages 
to  the  slaves,  and  where  a  slave  was  loaned  by  one  plantation  owner  to 
another  it  was  not  wages  but  a  regular  rent  or  hire  which  was  paid,  and 
not  to  the  slave  but  to  his  master.  In  the  South  there  was  a  sharp  line  of 
cleavage,  not  only  between  the  master  and  his  property,  the  slave,  but 
equally  between  the  slave  owner  and  the  slaveless  man.  The  Virginian  or 
Carolinian  who  owned  no  slaves  was  in  the  position  of  a  landless  man  in 
Europe  during  the  middle  ages.  He  counted  for  nothing,  had  no  political 
or  social  influence,  and  deteriorated  into  the  so-called  "white  trash,"  which 
has  shown  its  capabilities  only  since  the  Civil  War. 

In  the  Northern  states  the  conditions  were  much  better,  but  even  here 
a  line  was  drawn  between  those  who  worked  with  their  hands  and  those 
who  lived  from  the  product  of  other  men's  labor.  In  the  old  Colonial  days 
the  toiler  had  no  education  and  few  political  rights.  His  work  was  largely 
that  of  an  unskilled  man.  He  did  not  possess  the  means  or  the  opportunity 
of  educating  himself  or  his  children,  and  his  wages,  even  when  paid  in 
money,  were  barely  sufficient  to  feed  and  lodge  him  and  to  provide  him  with 
an  annual  suit  of  homespun  clothing.  The  workingman  at  that  time  wore 
\\hat  was  practically  a  distinctive  dress,  and  there  was  no  danger  of  con- 
founding him  with  the  "gentleman"  who  walked  upon  the  other  side  of  the 
way. 

It  is  difficult  to  compare  the  wages  of   people   living   in   one   state   of 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  53 

society  or  at  one  period  of  history  with  the  wages  of  those  living  and  work- 
ing in  another.  Conditions  change  so  as  to  render  it  almost  impossible 
to  say  whether  a  class  of  men  is  better  off  at  one  time  or  at  another.  We 
know  what  wages  were  received  by  men  in  Colonial  days,  but  the  value  of 
money  has  changed.  The  men  themselves,  their  work,  their  methods  of 
living,  and  their  requirements  of  comfort  and  luxury  have  likewise  changed. 
Roughly  speaking,  however,  one  may  say  that  the  workingmen  of  that  day 
maintained  an  appreciably  lower  standard  of  living,  that  their  wants  and 
necessities  were  fewer,  and  that  their  wages,  measured  both  in  money  and 
by  what  they  could  buy,  were  much  less  than  at  the  present  time 

In  the  colony  of  Virginia  as  in  that  of  Massachusetts,  the  original  idea 
was  to  form  a  society  upon  a  crudely  communistic  basis.  It  was  proposed  to 
put  all  men  to  work  at  appointed  tasks  and  to  allow  them  to  share  in  the 
products  of  labor,  cither  equally  or  according  to  their  needs.  This  attempt, 
however,  was  not  successful,  owing  to  the  fact  that  many  of  the  Cavaliers 
refused  to  perform  their  share,  or  indeed  any  part,  of  the  work,  and  as  a 
consequence  the  whole  plan  was  abandoned.  As  Captain  John  Smith  of 
Virginia  declared,  "lie  that  will  not  work  shall  not  eat."  The  colony 
shortly  afterward  imported  slaves  and  no  attempt  was  ever  made  to  reestab- 
lish communism  in  Virginia. 

As  early  as  1633,  or  thirteen  years  after  the  arrival  of  the  Mayflower, 
the  policy  of  determining  wages  by  law  was  put  to  the  test  of  experience  in 
Massachusetts.  The  fiencral  Court  decreed  that  carpenter*,  sawyers,  masons. 
brick-layers,  tillers,  joiners, wheelwrights,  and  certain  other  workmen  should 
receive  no  more  than  _>s.  (  50^  )'  per  day. or. if  furnished  with  li\iug.  not  over 
i  4<1.  (j8f*)  per  day.  Workmen  of  smaller  capacity  were  t<>  have  their 
wages  determined  by  the  constable*.  The  wage*  of  skilled  tailors  were 

'In  giving  the  wages  of  Colonial  workingmen,   I   have  cMimated  tin-  shilling  ;tt  -'5 
rents,  in  order  t<    enable  an  approximate  comparison   to  l>e   m:tde  between  the  wnge-> 
of  those  clays  and  of  these.     Any  such  comparison.  ho\vc\cr.  cannot   be   exact,  as  dil 
tcrcnt   kinds   of  shillings   were  current  at  different   times   and   places,  and   their  value* 
underwent  change. 


54  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

fixed  at  I2d.  (24^)  per  day  and  of  unskilled  tailors  at  8d.  (16^).  The 
better  class  of  the  common,  unskilled  laborers  were  to  be  paid  i8cl.  (36^) 
per  day  and  the  less  skilled  in  proportion.  At  one  time  a  penalty  of  55. 
($1.25)  was  imposed  upon  employers  paying  higher  wages,  but  this  pro- 
vision was  subsequently  repealed.  The  whole  law,  moreover,  was  com- 
monly evaded  and  soon  became  obsolete. 

Generally  speaking,  the  average  pay  for  mechanics'  labor  in  the  colony 
of  Massachusetts  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  was  about  2s. 
(5°<0  Per  day,  and  as  late  as  1672  the  wages  of  common  laborers  did  not 
exceed  2s.  (50^).  Even  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  pay  for 
common  labor  seems  to  have  been  at  about  the  same  level,  although  excep- 
tionally skilled,  all-round  men  occasionally  averaged  highernvages.  The 
wages  of  women  were,  of  course,  much  lower,  amounting  to  four  or  five 
pounds  ($20  to  $25)  per  year,  apparently  with  food,  while  Indians  who 
worked  in  the  fields  received  about  a  shilling  and  six-pence  (36^)  per  day. 
The  wages  seem  to  have  remained  almost  stationary  during  the  seventeenth 
century  and  not  to  have  increased  very  rapidly  until  after  the  Revolutionary 
War. 

The  condition  of  a  workman,  however,  depends  not  only  upon  the 
number  of  shillings  or  dollars  which  he  receives  for  his  labor,  but  upon  the 
amount  of  things  to  eat  and  drink  and  wear  that  can  be  bought  with  these 
shillings  or  dollars.  It  is  difficult  to  ascertain  just  what  could  be  purchased 
in  Colonial  times  with  the  2s.  which  the  workman  earned  each  day.  Prices 
fluctuated  considerably.  Nevertheless,  it  appears  that  many  articles  con- 
sumed by  ihe  working  people  were  higher  in  price  than  at  present.  Thus, 
corn  varied  from  6s.  ($1.50)  per  bushel  in  1633  to  125.  ($3.00)  per  bushel 
in  1635.  In  other  words,  in  these  years  it  took  from  three  to  six  days  of 
work  to  buy  a  bushel  of  corn,  whereas,  at  the  present  lime,  it  would  take 
only  about  one-third  to  one-half  of  the  day's  wages  of  an  unskilled  work- 
man to  buy  the  same  quantity.  Butter  was  cheaper,  selling  for  6d.  (12^) 
and  cheese  for  5d.  (lOf4)  per  pound;  but  on  the  whole  the  prices  of  the  ab- 
solute necessities  of  life  appear  to  have  been  at  least  as  high,  if  not  higher, 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  55 

than  at  the  present  time,  while  the  number  of  things  consumed  by  the  aver- 
age workman  was  less.  There  are,  of  course,  many  things  of  necessity  to 
the  workman  at  the  present  time,  such  as  car  fare,  high  ground-rents,  etc., 
which  were  not  elements  of  cost  in  those  days,  and  it  is  probable  that  many 
of  the  workmen  who,  in  Colonial  times,  daily  received  a  couple  or  shillings, 
owned  a  little  patch  of  ground  and  possibly  a  cow,  a  hog,  or  some  chickens, 
which,  in  connection  with  their  earnings,  enabled  them  to  provide  for  the 
wants  of  the  family.  Their  clothing  was  usually  made  by  their  wives  in 
their  own  households.  While  the  living  was  rude  and  simple  and  many  of 
the  present  day  comforts  and  luxuries  were  not  obtainable,  and  were  not 
even  desired,  the  general  condition  of  the  toilers  was  not  an  unhappy  one. 
There  was  not  much  comfort  and  probably  little  refinement  in  the  life  of  the 
workman  of  that  day,  but  there  was.  apparently,  also  but  little  actual  want 
;:iul  acute  suffering,  except,  j>erhaps,  when  the  corn  crop  failed  or  some  olh:r 
calamity  aftlicted  the  colony. 

The  hours  of  work  for  which  the  2s.  of  the  laborer  stood  were,  in  gen- 
eral, from  sunrise  to  sunset.  The  illumination  of  houses  was  not  such  as 
to  permit  much  work  after  sundown,  but  the  men  as  well  as  the  women  and 
children  worked  as  long  as  there  was  daylight.  There  was  a  plentiful  de- 
mand  for  unskilled  lal>or,  but  it  was  necessary  to  work  long  and  arduously 
to  get  a  sufficient  living  from  the  land.  To  a  certain  extent  the  work  was 
done  by  indentured  servants.  There  were  many  people  in  England,  .nul  in 
Kurope  generally,  who,  to  benefit  their  condition  or  to  cseaj>c  oppression  or 
persecution,  were  anxious  and  willing  to  leave  their  native  country.  These 
men  and  women  usually  received  free  passage  on  condition  that  upM!  their 
arrival  in  America  they  be  indentured  for  a  number  of  years,  and  so  work 
out  their  passage  money.  During  this  time  of  indenture  the  rcdemptioners, 
.'is  they  were  called,  were  obliged  to  work  without  wages  at  the  dictation  of 
ll.eir  masters,  their  only  compensation,  as  a  rule,  being  a  suit  of  clothes 
called  the  "freedom  suit,"  given  to  them  at  the  termination  of  their  period 
of  service.  The  position  of  the  rcdemptioners  was  much  better  than  that 
of  slaves,  as  they  possessed  a  number  of  rights  well  defined  by  law;  but  in 


56  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

many  cases  they  were  harshly  treated  and  they  were  severely  punished  for 
running  away.  The  system  of  indenturing  workmen,  moreover,  led  to  a 
number  of  abuses  owing  to  its  being  profitable  to  ship  owners.  Not  only 
were  men  fleeing  from  justice,  and  outcast  men  and  women  generally,  sold 
in  this  way,  but  youths  were  not  infrequently  kidnapped  upon  the  streets  of 
European  cities  and  sold  at  a  profit  in  Virginia  or  Massachusetts. 

Another  effect  of  the  great  demand  for  unskilled  labor  was  the  em- 
ployment of  very  small  children.  In  some  cases  boys  \vere  apprenticed  at 
the  age  of  seven  and  were  obliged  to  labor,  under  rigid  discipline  and  at 
difficult  work,  until  the  age  of  twenty-one,  when  they  were  supposed  to  re- 
ceive full  journeymen's  wages. 

The  conditions  of  labor  in  the  Colonies  were  by  no  means  idyllic,  but 
they  were  relieved  by  the  fact  that  in  the  North,  at  least,  a  majority  of  the 
laborers  were  freemen.  There  was  at  that  time  no  necessity  of,  or  advan- 
tage in,  forming  trade  unions  and  no  considerable  organizations  of  labor  are 
known  to  have  existed.  The  problem  of  the  day  was  not  how  to  distribute 
the  wealth  of  the  community  but  rather  how  to  increase  it.  As  long  as  the 
main  brunt  of  the  conflict  of  the  working-man  is  to  subdue  nature  and  in- 
crease the  productivity  of  labor  in  order  to  be  able  to  live,  there  is  small 
need  for  organization  of  the  latter-day  type.  It  is  only  where  the  laborer 
is  deprived  of  his  hire  by  the  cupidity  of  employers  or  by  the  harshness  of 
competition  that  organizations  of  workmen  for  their  defense  may  be  rea- 
sonably successful.  It  is  thus  that  the  general  organization  oi  American 
labor  begins  only  after  the  Revolutionary  War,  and,  in  fact,  only  after  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  American  workman  has  advanced  with  giant  strides  during  th^ 
centuries  which  have  elapsed  since  Colonial  days.  In  the  amount  of  his 
wages,  in  the  length  of  his  working  day,  in  the  things  he  can  buy  and  the 
leisure  he  can  enjoy,  in  his  legal  rights  and  political  privileges,  in  his  own 
skill,  intelligence,  enlightenment,  and  self-direction,  and  finally,  in  the 
esteem  in  which  he  is  held  and  the  humanity  with  which  he  is  treated,  the 
workingman  of  the  America  of  to-day  is  infinitely  better  off  than  was  his 
remote  ancestor  before  the  Revolution. 


Kk\\K   M<»kkiso\ 

Secretary  ••(  ih«-  Amrrir.m  Frdnation  of  I.nlior 


JOHN  H.    LKNNON 

General  Secretary  of  the  Journeymen  Tailors'   luteinational   Union 
Treasurer  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 


CHAPTER  VIII 

LABOR   FROM   THE   DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE   TO 
THE   EMANCIPATION   PROCLAMATION 

Labor  Conditions  after  the  Revolution.  Slavery  in  the  South.  The  First  Labor 
Problem — Slave  versus  Free  Labor.  Lo»v  Wages  in  the  North.  Depreciated  Money. 
High  Prices.  Simple  Food  and  Clothing.  No  Comforts  or  Luxuries.  No  Education 
and  No  Vote  for  the  Workingman.  No  Mechanics'  Lien.  Imprisonment  for  Debt. 
The  Right  to  Strike  Denied.  Gradual  Improvement.  Wages  Rise.  A  Shorter  Work- 
ing Day.  The  Work  of  Women.  The  Beginnings  of  a  Labor  Movement. 

THE  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  make  all  men  "free  and  equal." 
and  the  American  Revolution  did  not  throw  off  all  the  shackles  of 
labor.  Politically,  America  was  free  to  enter  upon  her  glorious  career 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth;  economically,  however,  the  Revolution  did 
not  effect  a  direct,  immediate  improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  working- 
men.  The  ne\v-l>oni  country  awoke  to  the  tidings  of  peace  and  independ- 
ence, suffering,  impoverished,  and  debt-ridden,  and  to  the  American  work- 
man the  overthrow  of  British  sovereignty  did  not,  at  least  at  the  outset, 
bring  higher  wages,  more  regular  wages,  or  wages  in  better  money. 

The  history  of  the  I'nited  States  from  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, in  1776,  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  in  1X63.  is  the  solution  of 
a  lalxjr  problem — the  problem  of  sla\e  rrr.vif.?  free  labor.  1'Yom  the  found- 
ing of  the  Republic  there  had  threatened  an  irrepressible  conflict  between 
the  labor  of  freemen  and  of  bondmen.  Men  saw  that  one  of  two  tilings 
must  come  to  pass:  the  freemen  must  break  the  shackles  of  the  slaves  or  tin- 
slaves  would  forge  fetters  for  the  free.  The  Northern  workingmen,  and 
e<-j>eciallv  the  trade  unionists  of  that  day.  cried  aloud  for  the  abolition  ot 
rhattd  slavery,  and  it  was  in  large  part  due  to  the  patriotism  of  American 
\vorkinginen  that  slavery  disappeared  from  the  North  American  continent. 

At  the  time  ot  the  first  census  of  the  United  States  in  1790,  seven 

(57; 


58  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

years  after  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  there  were  in  the  country 
some  750,000  negroes,  or  almost  one  in  five  of  the  population.  Of  these 
negroes  the  great  majority  were  slaves  on  the  cotton  and  tobacco  planta- 
tions of  the  South.  The  Constitution  had  not  prohibited  slavery  and  had 
even  withheld  from  the  Federal  Government,  before  the  year  1808,  the 
right  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves.  At  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution  it  was  generally  believed  that  slavery  would  not  con- 
tinue much  longer.  So  great  was  the  expensiveness,  ignorance,  unreli- 
ability, and  wastefulness  of  slave  labor,  that  it  seemed  probable  that  the 
slaves  would  be  largely  liberated,  or,  at  least,  permitted  to  purchase  their 
freedom.  But  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  in  1793  changed  this  anc'. 
made  slavery  exceedingly  profitable.  From  this  time  on  cotton  growing- 
paid  well,  and  slaves  were  largely  sought  and  became  extremely  valuable. 
The  history  of  the  United  States  from  1790  to  1860  is  the  story  of  a  lon~ 
industrial  and  political  conflict  between  the  states  where  slave  labor  pre- 
vailed and  those  in  which  labor  was  free.  In  other  words,  the  principal 
question  that  demanded  solution  was  a  labor  problem,  the  problem  of  slave 
versus  free  labor. 

The  evolution  and  solution  of  this  first  labor  problem  in  the  Unite;! 
States  and  the  terrific  struggle  and  awful  sacrifice  which  accomplished  it, 
are  too  well  known  to  require  repetition.  For  some  time  the  slave  states 
grew  with  great  rapidity,  owing  to  the  phenomenal  development  of  the  cot- 
ton industry,  and  year  by  year  slavery  extended  westward  from  the  southern 
Atlantic  coast  to  the  Mississippi  River.  Thereafter  the  struggle  took  the 
form  of  a  contest  for  the  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  in  this  con- 
test the  states  with  free  labor  won.  The  European  immigrants  arriving  in 
this  country  prior  to  the  Civil  War,  settled  in  the  states  with  free  labor  and 
held  aloof  from  the  states  with  slave  labor.  The  population,  intelligence 
and  wealth  of  the  free  states  increased  more  rapidly  than  those  of  the  slave 
states  and  the  opposition  to  chattel  slavery  grew  so  strong  in  the  North  that 
the  South,  despairing  of  the  future,  attempted  to  solve  the  problem  by  seces- 
sion. With  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  and  the  success  of  the  North,  the 


ORGANIZED  LABOR  59 

victory  of  free  over  slave  labor  was  complete.  It  is  a  sign  full  of  promise 
for  the  future  that  during  the  last  two  decades  the  South  has  made  wonder- 
ful progress,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  prosperity  of  the  Southern 
States  \vill  be  greater  under  free  labor  than  was  possible  under  a  system  of 


\Yhile  the  chief  labor  problem  of  the  United  States  during  the  period 
from  1/90  to  1860  was  the  question  of  free  versus  slave  labor,  there  was 
fought  out  during  the  same  period  in  the  North  the  problem  of  the  proper 
status  of  free  lalx>r.  The  close  of  the  Revolution  found  die  workingmen 
of  the  North  in  a  condition  but  little,  if  at  all,  superior  to  that  in  which  he 
had  been  at  the  beginning  of  the  contest.  The  ordinary  unskilled  workman 
still  earned  his  two  shillings  (50^)  a  day;  he  still  worked  from  sun-up  to 
sun-do\vn  ;  the  commodities  which  he  purchased  were  still  expensive.  Ac- 
cording to  Professor  McMaster,  the  price  of  corn  in  178.4  was  55.  (75^)  per 
bushel  and  that  of  wheat  8s.  6d.  ($2.12)  a  bushel,  while  the  price  of  a 
pound  of  salt  pork  was  rod.  (20^),  so  that  an  ordinary  unskilled  laborer 
would  have  to  work  a  day  and  a  half  for  a  bushel  of  corn,  four  days  and  a 
quarter  for  a  bushel  of  wheat,  and  about  two  days  for  five  pounds  of  salt 
pork. 

The  standard  of  living  of  the  American  workman  at  the  close  of  the 
Revolution  was  extremely  low.  Staple  articles  of  consumption  seem  to 
have  been  expensive  and  the  variety  of  food,  limited.  Workingmen  rarely 
tasted  fresh  meat  more  than  once  a  week  and  even  this  was  considered  a 
luxury.  The  large  number  of  fresh  foods  and  vegetables  which  can  now 
1)C  obtained  at  reasonable  cost  were  at  that  time  either  unknown  or  so  ex- 
pensive as  to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  the  poor,  and  such  fruits  and  vegetables 
as  the  canteloupc,  tomato,  rhubarb,  sweet  corn,  cauliflower,  egg  plant,  and 
others  were  entirely  unknown.  The  dress  of  the  workman  was  simple  and 
coarse.  "A  pair  of  yellow  buckskin  or  leathern  breeches,  a  checked  shirt, 
u  red  flnnnrl  jacket,  a  rusty  felt  hat  cocked  up  at  the  corners,  shoes  of  neat's 
skin  set  off  wilh  huge  buckles  of  brass,  and  a  leathern  apron  comprised  his 
-canty  wardrobe."  The  wives  rind  daughters  of  the  workingmen  were 


60  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

clothed  and  fed  with  equal  economy,  and  with  as  little  regard  for  taste  or 
comfort.  Their  homes  were  extremely  plain ;  the  floors  of  the  dingy  rooms 
were  sprinkled  with  sand,  which  took  the  place  of  a  carpet,  and  the  walls 
were  bare  of  adornment.  There  were  no  pictures  or  prints  of  any  sort  and 
no  glass  or  china,  the  dishes  of  the  working  classes  being  made  entirely  of 
pewter.  There  were  no  stoves,  no  coal,  no  matches,  and  fire  for  the  modest 
cooking  of  the  poor  was  lighted  from  the  sparks  of  a  flint. 

In  many  other  respects  the  workingmen  of  that  day  were  at  a  great 
disadvantage  as  compared  with  their  descendants  of  the  present  time.  The 
facilities  for  securing  an  education  were  extremely  meagre,  and  where 
schools  existed  the  cost  was  usually  prohibitive.  There  was  no  regularity 
in  the  payment  of  wages,  and  frequently  a  workman  was  obliged  to  wait 
many  weeks  or  months  for  any  pay  at  all.  Even  when  he  received  his 
wages  he  was  liable  to  be  deceived  into  accepting  depreciated  currency  or 
the  notes  of  banks  which  had  failed,  money  of  all  forms  and  kinds  being  in 
circulation.  Further,  lie  might  be  deprived  of  his  earnings  by  the  failure 
or  dishonesty  of  his  employer,  and  his  situation  was  in  every  way  precari- 
ous. In  many  parts  of  the  country  truck  stores  existed,  and  it  was  not  in- 
frequent for  payment  of  wages  to  be  made  in  commodities  or  in  an  order 
on  a  store  instead  of  in  legal  tender.  For  such  injustices  as  the  working- 
man  suffered  there  was  small  redress.  In  many  states  he  did  not  possess 
the  suffrage,  and  as  a  non-voter  he  had  practically  no  influence  in  political 
and  social  life.  There  were  no  savings  banks  in  which  to  deposit  his  sav- 
ings, if  lie  possessed  any,  and  no  beneficial  societies  or  strong  trade  unions 
which  could  insure  him  against  a  rainy  day. 

Bad  as  was  the  condition  of  the  average  workingman  in  times  of  health 
and  steady  work,  it  was  incalculably  worse  with  the  first  buffet  of  misfor- 
tune. The  law  was  extremely  scrupulous  about  the  rights  of  property  and 
in  those  days  even  more  than  at  present  placed  the  dollar  above  the  man. 
The  wage  earner  whom  misfortune  overtook,  whose  wife  fell  ill,  or  who 
himself  was  crippled  or  disabled  temporarily,  was  subjected  to  the  severest 
penalties  of  the  law  for  the  crime  of  having  no  money.  In  the  newly-freed 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  6l 

United  States,  as  in  England,  a  man  could  be  thrust  into  prison  because  he 
was  in  debt.  Xo  matter  how  small  the  sum,  there  was  no  immunity  from 
this  punishment,  if  the  creditor  wished  to  take  advantage  of  the  law.  The 
jails  were  filled  with  debtors,  many  of  them  workingmen.  It  was  estimated 
that  of  the  inmates  of  the  prisons  of  Massachusetts,  New  York,  and  Penn- 
sylvania in  1829,  20,000  were  there  for  the  non-payment  of  debts,  most  of 
these  being  small  in  amount.  The  average  per  capita  indebtedness  of  1,085 
debtors  in  the  Philadelphia  prison  in  18.28  was  less  than  $J4.oo,  and  one 
case  is  on  record  in  which  a  man  was  confined  in  jail  thirty-two  days  for 
a  debt  of  two  cents.  The  character  of  these  debtors'  prisons  beggars  de- 
scription. The  workingman  who,  through  illness  or  lack  of  work,  fell  into 
arrears  of  rent,  might  be  thro\\  n  into  an  indescribably  filthy  and  unsanitary 
jail,  amid  a  swarm  of  murderers,  thieves,  and  hardened  criminals.  The 
miseries  of  some  of  the  debtors'  prisons  can  be  compared  only  with  the 
horrors  of  the  slave  ships. 

While  the  American  Revolution  did  not  result  in  an  immediate  im- 
provement of  labor  conditions,  it  rendered  this  improvement  ultimately  pos- 
sible. As  long  as  the  Colonies  remained  under  the  dominion  and  tutelage 
of  (ireat  Britain,  they  were  debarred  from  developing  to  the  full  their  natu- 
ral resources.  The  impetus  to  industry  given  by  freedom  and  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  stable  home  government  was  not  immediately  effective  in  ma- 
terially bettering  labor  conditions.  The  administrations  of  Washington  and 
Adams  passed  without  marked  improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  work- 
inginan;  Kven  in  the  days  of  Jefferson  the  state  of  the  American  wage- 
earner  was  still  far  from  satisfactory.  The  great  mass  of  unskilled  laborers 
in  the  cities  v. ere  hired  by  the  day.  while  on  the  farms  and  UJHHI  public 
works  men  were  employed  by  the  month  and  were  given  free  board.  flu- 
wages  of  such  men  did  not  average  much  over  five  or  six  dollars  a  month. 
The  diggers  on  the  Pennsylvania  canals  \\ere  wretchedly  housed,  were  ted 
UJX.MI  coarse,  cheap  food,  and  received  six  dollars  a  month  in  summer  and 
a  dollar  less  per  month  in  v\  inter.  About  the  same  wages  were  paid  to  the 
unskilled  workers,  hod  carriers,  mortar  mixers,  diggers  and  chopper:-.,  who, 


62  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

from  1793  to  1800  worked  on  the  public  buildings  and  streets  of  Washing- 
ton. At  Albany  and  New  York  wages  were  forty  cents  a  day,  at  Lancas- 
ter, Pa.,  from  eight  to  ten  dollars  a  month,  and  at  Baltimore,  about  six  dol- 
lars or  less.  In  Virginia  the  ordinary  white  laborer  received,  besides  board 
and  keep,  about  $5.33  a  month,  one-fourth  less  being  paid  for  the  hire  of 
slaves.  The  work  was  arduous  and  lasted  as  long  as  daylight.  The  con- 
dition'of  skilled  artisans  was,  of  course,  better,  yet  their  wages  were  low  in 
comparison  with  those  of  to-day.  Typesetters  were  paid  at  a  piece  rate  of 
25^  per  thousand  ems,  and  were  thus  enabled  to  earn  as  much  as  eight  dol- 
lars a  week.  These  wages  were  considered  so  excessively  high  that  the 
newspaper  companies  felt  justified  in  putting  up  the  prices  of  their  journals. 

The  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  brought  an  increase  in  wages 
to  the  laboring  men  of  the  country,  -but  did  not  effectually  settle  the  griev- 
ances of  the  workingmen.  This  period  witnessed  the  beginning  of  manu- 
facturing in  the  United  States  and  the  rise  and  gradual  extension  of  the 
factory  system.  Many  opportunities  of  labor  formerly  non-existent  were 
created.  The  construction  of  canals  and  of  public  roads  as  well  as  the  open- 
ing of  the  great  West  brought  about  a  strong  demand  for  unskilled  labor. 
The  policy  of  non-intercourse  with  Europe  and  the  succeeding  war  with 
England  bad  given  an  impetus  to  manufacturing,  and  industrial  establish- 
ments sprang  up  in  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  elsewhere. 
At  the  same  time  there  began,  about  1820,  that  vast  wave  of  immigration 
which  has  continued  to  How  unceasingly  and  has  peopled  the  new  world  with 
the  children  of  the  old. 

From  1825  to  1829,  or  in  other  words,  during  the  administration  of 
John  Quiii cy  Adams,  the  earnings  of  the  American  workingman  were 
higher  than  ever  before  in  American  history.  The  unskilled  workmen,  such 
as  sawyers  and  hod  carriers,  received  about  75^  a  day  for  twelve  hours  of 
work,  while  on  the  canals  and  turnpikes,  men  who.  a  quarter  of  a  century  be- 
fore, had  earned  six  dollars,  now  received  fifteen  dollars  a  month  and  boar;!. 
During  the  winter,  however,  wages  were  lower.  Men  who  could  earn  in 
summer  from  62^  to  80^  per  day  were  glad  to  receive  a  much  smaller  sum 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  63 

in  winter.  \Yith  each  approach  of  cold  weather  the  whole  community 
seemed  to  shrink  within  itself;  wages  were  reduced,  and  the  expenditures  of 
the  workingmen  curtailed.  The  remuneration  of  women  was,  as  to-day, 
lower  than  that  of  men,  and  their  opportunities  for  employment  incompar- 
ably less.  According  to  Professor  McMaster,1  these  women  "might  bind 
shoes,  sew  rags,  fold  and  stitch  books,  become  spoolers,  or  make  coarse 
shirts  and  duck  pantaloons  at  eight  or  ten  cents  a  piece.  Shirt-making  was 
eagerly  sought  after,  because  the  garments  could  be  made  in  the  lodgings 
of  the  seamstress,  who  was  commonly  the  mother  of  a  little  family,  and 
often  a  widow.  Yet  the  most  expert  could  not  finish  more  than  nine  shirts 
a  week,  for  which  she  would  receive  seventy-two  or  ninety  cents.  Fifty 
cents  seems  to  have  been  the  average." 

\Yhile  wages  had  thus  risen  in  the  quarter  of  a  century  since  the  inaug- 
uration of  Jefferson,  and  many  of  the  abuses  which  had  plagued  colonial 
workers  had  disappeared,  vet  prices  also  had  risen  and  not  a  fe\\  of  the  old 
grievances  were  unrelieved.  Still,  on  the  whole,  work  was  better  remuner- 
ated and  the  workmen  better  off.  The  condition  of  the  entire  nation  was 
improved,  life  was  easier,  and  many  of  the  hardships  incident  to  the  earlier 
days  <>f  the  settlement  of  the  country,  had  disappeared.  Canals  and  turn- 
pikes threaded  the  land  and  abridged  distances  between  the  main  cities, 
which  \\crc  growing  rapidly  in  wealth  and  population.  The  Krie  Canal  h:nl 
been  built,  transportation  chcajxMied,  the  West  and  Kast  linked  together. 
Everywhere  the  country  was  full  with  the  new  life  of  a  coining  era.  In  all 
parts  of  the  Kasl  banking,  insurance,  steamboat,  turnpike,  and  canal  com 
panics  were  being  formed,  and  factories  and  mills  established.  There  w:: •; 
a  demand  for  mill  hands,  mechanics,  machinists,  engineers,  clerks  and  book- 
keepers, and  for  workmen  in  occupations  which,  a  quarter  of  a  century 
before,  could  hardly  be  said  to  exist.  The  wages  of  labor  had  risen,  hours 
had  shown  a  slight  tendency  to  decrease,  and  a  somewhat  greater  willing- 
ness w;is  niatrfesled  to  treat  the  workingman  as  a  human  IxHng  and 
not  as  a  slave  or  ;\  serf.  In  many  states  the  la\v  consigning  men  to  j  til 
'  History  el  the  People  of  the  Unitr.l  States,  l>y  J..lm  !'  MrM.rt«r 


64  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

for  small  debts  had  been  repealed  or  amended,  and  no  man  could  now  be 
imprisoned  for  a  debt  of  less  than  $15,  $20,  or  $25,  according  to  the  state  in 
which  he  lived.  In  the  larger  cities  savings  banks  had  come  into  existence, 
and  the  workingman  could  secure  not  only  a  reasonably  safe  place  of  deposit, 
but  also  might  receive  interest  upon  his  money.  The  old  evils,  however, 
had  been  lessened  rather  than  removed.  The  workingman  was  still  liable, 
in  the  absence  of  lien  laws,  to  see  his  wages  lost  through  the  failure  or  fraud 
of  a  contractor,  was  still  liable,  under  the  old  common  law,  to  arrest  for 
striking  or  for  other  acts  of  conspiracy  or  combination,  and  as  he  was  still 
without  a  vote  in  many  states,  he  could  not  secure  the  enactment  of  better 
laws  or  even  the  repeal  of  the  old  ones.  The  conditions  in  some  of  the  fac- 
tories which  were  now  springing  up  in  New  England  and  elsewhere,  were 
extremely  bad,  and  women  and  children  were  harshly  treated  and  cruelly 
exploited.  The  time  was  marked  also  by  a  vast  amount  of  intemperance 
and  much  want,  suffering,  and  degradation  in  the  rapidly  growing  cities. 

It  was  at  this  time,  about  the  year  1825,  when  the  conditions  of  the 
American  workman  had  already  begun  to  improve,  that  the  first  consider- 
able unrest  appeared  among  the  laboring  classes.  Friends  of  the  working- 
men  called  upon  the  legislatures  to  "prevent  the  rich  from  swallowing  up 
the  inheritance  of  the  poor,"  asked  for  protection  for  factory  operatives,  who 
were  exposed  to  sickness,  death,  and  mutilating  accidents,  and  demanded 
better,  cleaner,  and  healthier  workshops  for  these  people.  "Such  pleas," 
says  the  historian,  Processor  John  B.  McMaster,  "had  small  effect  on  the 
public  but  more  on  the  workingmen  and  women  who,  after  1825,  began  to 
organize  in  earnest."  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  American  workmen  em- 
barked upon  socialistic  and  communistic  schemes,  formed  societies  in  various 
parts  of  the  country,  and  endeavored  to  live  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  conscience  and  their  ideas  of  social  justice.  Societies  were  formed  at 
New  Harmony  and  elsewhere,  the  workingmen  were  stirred  to  higher  ideals 
by  the  visit  to  America  of  Robert  Owen,  and  a  number  of  workmen  in  the 
large  cities  became  interested  in  movements  for  reform,  which,  however, 
lacked  elements  of  permanence  and  stability. 


Tin.   I, A  1 1.   I'.    M.    A K  i  HI  R 
(»rnn<l  Chief  Brotherhood  Locomotive  ICngmecr> 


EXECUTIVE  COM.MI  i  IEK  01    THE  II.LIXOIS  COAL  OPEKATOK:S'  ASSOCIATION 


This  Association  enters  into  yearly  contracts  with  the   Union,  and  since  its  formation 

there  has  been  no  strike 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  65 

The  improvement  in  the  status  and  condition  of  American  workmen 
becomes  more  apparent  after  1825,  when  a  numljer  of  local  trade  unions 
sprang  up  in  the  chief  cities  of  the  country.  During-  this  period  and  until 
the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  there  was  a  gradual  evolution  of  the  Ameri- 
can workman  toward  a  higher  standard  of  life  and  labor.  Money  wages 
rose,  as  did  also  real  wages,  though  to  a  smaller  extent,  since  prices  rose  at 
the  same  time.  The  increase  in  wages  during  the  period  ending  1860  may 
be  shown  by  a  large  number  of  instances.  Thus.  carj>enters,  who  were  paid 
less  than  Goo1  in  1/90,  received,  according  to  Mr.  Carroll  I).  Wright,  I'nited 
States  Commissioner  of  I^alxjr,  from  $1.13  to  $1.40  per  day  during  the 
period  from  1830  to  1840,  after  which  these  wages  remained  fairly  station- 
ary. A  similar  rise  took  place  in  the  .wages  of  common  laborers,  who  aver- 
aged about  43^  a  day  in  1/90,  62$  f  in  1800,  82^  from  1800  to  1810,  90^ 
from  1810  to  1820  and  87^  to  $1.00  a  day  from  1840  to  1860.  The  wages 
of  printers  rose  from  an  average  of  about  $1.00  a  day  in  1800,  to  $1.75  in 
1860,  while  the  daily  remuneration  of  shoemakers  increased  from  73^  to 
$1.00.  The  wages  of  the  hands  in  the  textile  mills  also  advanced,  in  the 
cotton  mills  the  average  rising  from  about  44^  in  1820  to  $1.03  in  i8(>o. 

It  must,  of  course,  be  understood  that  these  statistics  are  not  absolutelv 
exact,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  records  during  this  period  are  incomplete 
and,  to  a  certain  extent,  untrustworthy.  I  hit  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a 
gradual  increase  took  place  in  the  rate  of  wages  paid  to  most  classes  of  work- 
men. While  for  certain  commodities  prices  rose, other  prices  fell,  and  it  seems 
to  be  unquestioned  that  the  American  workman  could  and  did  purchase 
more  with  his  earnings  in  i8no  than  \\;ts  possible  in  1800.  In  addition  to 
increased  wages,  the  working  classes  secured  an  extension  of  their  political 
rights,  better  opportunities  for  education,  and  the  amelioration  of  mam 
onerous  conditions  which  had  formerly  borne  heavily  upon  Them. 


CHAPTER  IX 
ORGANIZED  LABOR  BEFORE  AND  SINCE  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

American  Labor  Unions  Date  from  the  Nineteenth  Century.  Reasons  for  Late 
Development.  Agricultural  Population.  Smallness  of  Cities.  New  York  and  Haver- 
liill.  Early  Unions  Local.  Slow  Growth.  Central  Labor  Unions.  Political  Progress 
of  Unions.  Persecution  and  Conspiracy.  Union  Successes.  National  Unions  after 
1850.  The  Civil  War  and  the  Unions.  Growth  of  Unionism  from  1866  to  1873.  The 
Progress  of  American  Unions. 

PRIOR  to  the  nineteenth  century  trade  unionism  could  hardly  be  said  to 
exist  in  the  United  States.  There  were  in  Boston  and  New  York 
some  small  organizations  of  calkers  and  other  artisans,  and  it  was  largely 
the  turbulence  and  aggressive  patriotism  of  these  men  that  led,  in  17/0,  to 
the  Boston  Massacre.  Not  until  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
however,  did  the  unions  become  of  sufficient  importance  to  warrant  much 
notice,  and  even  during  the  period  from  1800  to  1865  they  at  no  time  be- 
came an  element  of  real  power  in  the  community. 

This  late  growth  of  labor  organizations  in  the  United  States  was  due 
to  the  primitive  character  of  early  American  industry.  Trade  unionism, 
as  we  now  know  it,  is  the  result  of  a  highly  developed  industrial  system. 
Only  where  industry  is  conducted  on  a  large  scale  and  is  diversified,  only 
where  great  cities  exist  and  commerce  between  them  flourishes,  only,  then, 
in  highly  organized  industrial  communities  can  trade  unions  prosper.  The 
movement  took  rise  in  England  earlier  than  in  the  United  States,  because  in 
England  industrial  development  was  earlier,  and  for  the  same  reason  Eng- 
lish trade  unions  are  older  and  stronger  than  those  of  Continental  nations. 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1787  the  United 
States  was  a  thinly  populated  country  stretching  from  Canada  to  Elorida 
and  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi,  although  the  pioneers  had,  as  yet, 
hardly  crossed  the  Alleghenies.  The  total  population  in  this  area  was  but 

(66) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  67 

slightly  larger  than  that  of  the  City  of  New  York  to-day.  The  people  were 
almost  entirely  engaged  in  agricultural  pursuits,  and  at  this  time  and  for 
several  decades  thereafter,  such  industries  as  existed  were  small  and  were 
carried  on  for  the  local  trade  only.  In  1790  there  were  but  five  cities  in  the 
country  that  could  boast  a  population  of  10.000  inhabitants,  and  the 
metropolis  of  that  time,  New  York  City,  had  a  population  of  only  33,000, 
or  less  than  the  present  population  of  Chelsea,  Chester,  Davenport  or  Hav- 
erhill.  The  total  population  of  all  the  cities  of  the  United  States  with  8,000 
inhabitants  or  over,  would  not  have  amounted,  in  1/90,  to  the  present  pop- 
ulation of  Worcester,  and  even  as  late  as  1820  the  combined  population 
of  all  t!i?  cities  of  the  country  was  not  as  large  as  the  present  population  of 
Baltimore. 

The  occupation  and  status  of  large  sections  of  the  population  also 
tended  to  retard  the  growth  of  a  labor  movement.  l>y  far  the  greater  por- 
tion of  the  population  was  engaged  in  agricultural  pursuits,  and  the  farm 
hands,  whose  relations  to  their  employers  \vcre  largely  personal,  were  too 
widely  scattered  and  loo  isolated  to  permit  of  any  combined  action.  Agri- 
cultural laborers  do  not  lend  themselves  as  readily  to  organization  as  mining 
and  manufacturing  communities.  Kven  at  the  present  time  farming  in  the 
United  States  is  conducted  on  a  small  scale,  the  average  farm  being  smaller 
than  a  homestead,  and  there  being  less  than  four  wage  earners  or  hired  em- 
ployees, to  each  five  farms.  The  overwhelming  agricultural  population  of 
the  North  did  not,  in  the  early  days  of  the  century,  promote  the  spirit  of 
lal>or  organization,  and  the  slave  labor  of  the  South  proved  an  even  more 
insuperable  barrier  to  the  progress  of  union  ideas.  With  slave  conditions 
and  slave  traditions  the  trade  union  movement  \vas  completely  and  utterly 
incompatible. 

There  were  still  other  reasons  for  the  absence  of  an  effective  trade 
union  movement  in  the  t'nited  States  during  the  early  part  of  the  century. 
Xot  only  was  the  jxjpulation  sparse  and  largclv  engaged  in  agricultural 
labor,  but  such  industry  as  existed  was  on  a  small  scale,  and  the  working- 
men  were  not  sharply  separated  in  feeling  or  in  interest  from  their  cm- 


68  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

plovers.  The  workingman  of  those  days  had  a  fair  chance  of  becoming  a 
small  employer  himself,  and  at  the  worst  he  could  secure  at  little  expense  a 
small  farm  in  the  West.  To  a  large  extent  the  wage  earners  of  the  early 
days  were  without  education,  and  in  many  cases  they  did  not  possess  suffi- 
cient intelligence  to  understand  their  own  interests  or  to  act  together  in  a 
spirit  of  common  fellowship.  What  the  great  Scotch  political  economist, 
Adam  Smith,  said,  in  1776,  of  British  workmen,  was  equally  true  of  the 
American  workman  at  this  time:  "In  the  public  deliberations,  therefore,  his 
(the  laborer's)  voice  is  little  heard  and  less  regarded,  except  upon  some  par- 
ticular occasions,  when  his  clamor  is  set  on  and  supported  by  his  employers, 
not  for  his  own  but  their  own  particular  purposes.''  At  this  period  the 
American  workman  could  be  stampeded,  paraded,  or  if  necessary  voted  on 
a  wholesale  scale  by  his  employers,  and  it  was  not  until  much  later  that 
workingmen,  largely  through  the  influence  of  trade  unionism,  developed  a 
sense  of  the  rights  and  dignity  of  their  class. 

What  organizations  existed  at  the  beginning  of  the  century  were  small 
and  of  merely  local  importance,  being  confined  to  the  few  coast  cities. 
There  was  at  that  time  no  need  for,  and  no  possibility  of,  national  organiza- 
tions. The  carpenter  or  shoemaker  in  Boston  did  not  compete  with  his 
fellow-craftsman  in  Philadelphia,  these  two  cities  being  further  separated 
in  the  eyes  of  the  workingmen  of  those  days  than  are  at  present  New  York 
and  San  Francisco.  There  \vas  little  communication  between  the  several 
cities,  consequently  but  little  competition  for  positions.  Until  about  1850, 
therefore,  no  need  was  experienced  for  any  but  local  organizations. 

The  first  authenticated  instance  of  a  trade  union  in  the  United  States 
is  that  of  the  New  York  Society  of  Journeymen  Shipwrights,  which  was 
incorporated  on  April  3,  1803.  During  the  eighteenth  century  there  had 
existed  a  number  of  clubs  of  local  artisans,  such  as  the  Caulkers'  Club  of 
Boston,  but  it  is  believed  that  these  organizations  were  for  social  and  politi- 
cal purposes  only  and  did  not  possess  any  trade  policy.  In  the  year  1802 
a  strike  had  occurred  among  the  sailors  of  New  York,  but  a  union  among 
them  is  not  known  to  have  existed. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  69 

A  union  of  house  carpenters  of  the  City  of  New  York  was  incorpor- 
ated in  1806,  and  a  printers'  union,  called  the  New  York  Typographical 
Society,  appears  to  have  existed  from  almost  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  although  not  incorporated  until  1818.  A  similar  society 
appears  to  have  existed  in  Albany,  where  a  strike  was  declared  in  1821.  The 
shipwrights  and  caulkers  of  Boston  formed  themselves  into  a  labor  organi- 
zation in  1822,  and  in  1823  were  incorporated  under  a  charter  granted  by 
the  legislature  of  Massachusetts.  This  charter  was  similar  to  those  of  the 
old  friendly  societies,  giving  the  union  the  right  to  have  a  common  seal,  to 
protect  its  funds,  and  to  assist  unfortunate  mechanics  or  their  families  by 
benefits  of  various  kinds.  There  is,  of  course,  no  mention  of  the  right  to 
take  aggressive  action,  the  theory  being  that  such  organizations  were  solely 
for  benefit  purposes. 

The  growth  of  local  trade  unions  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  was  extremely  slow,  although  doubtless  there  existed  a  num- 
ber of  local  organizations  of  which  we  have  no  record.  After  1825,  how- 
ever, the  local  unions  became  stronger  and  many  small  organizations  in  tlv 
various  trades  were  formed  in  the  principal  cities,  the  chief  centers  of  trade 
unionism  being  Boston  and  New  York.  About  this  time,  also,  the  first 
labor  journals  appear,  the  ll'orkingman's  Advocate  being  published  in  New 
York  City  from  1825  to  1830,  and  being  succeeded  by  the  Daily  Sentinel 
;:nd  by  }'oitng  America.  These  papers  seem  to  have  adopted  an  aggressive, 
radical  j>olicy  and  to  have  exerted  some  influence,  although  their  circulation 
was  probably  small. 

The  first  traces  of  American  central  labor  unions  arc  not  found  until 
the  thirties.  In  1833  the  various  unions  of  the  metropolis  combined  to 
form  the  Central  Trades  t'nion  of  the  City  of  Now  York.  It  is  not  known 
that  this  federation  exerted  any  power,  or  that  it  was  more  than  a  mere  tern 
porary  gathering  "f  representatives  of  the  various  trades,  but  it  doubtless 
aided  the  movement  of  the  workingmcn  toward.s  a  jKirticipation  in  politics. 
Even  in  those  days  the  political  platform  of  the  unions  was.  on  the  whole, 
progressive  and  in  advance  of  the  time.  The  policy  of  the  unions  favoied 


70  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

the  freedom  of  the  public  domain,  a  homestead  law,  the  grant  to  settlers  of 
a  right  to  the  land,  the  making  of  homesteads  inalienable,  a  national  bank- 
rupt law,  a  mechanics'  lien  law,  the  abolition  of  imprisonment  for  debt,  the 
equality  of  women  with  men,  the  abolition  of  chattel  slavery,  the  limitation 
of  the  ownership  of  land  to  160  acres  per  man,  the  abolition  of  monopoly, 
especially  the  United  States  Bank,  and  the  right  of  the  government  to  carry 
the  mails  on  Sunday.  The  workingmen  also  demanded  free  and  universal 
education  as  a  step  toward  the  emancipation  and  elevation  of  their  class. 
Many  of  these  demands  have  since  been  granted,  and  the  wisdom  and  politi- 
cal foresight  of  the  unionists  has  been,  at  least  in  part,  justified.  Under 
Presidents  Jackson  and  Van  Buren  the  Democratic  party  was  supposed  to 
represent,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  interests  of  the  workingman,  and  it  was 
believed  by  many  that  the  election  of  Jackson  was  in  part  due  to  the  aid 
given  to  him  by  the  organized  workmen. 

The  trade  unions  of  this  time,  however,  were  still  weak  and  were 
obliged  to  overcome  a  considerable  amount  of  opposition.  In  the  United 
States,  as  in  England,  the  old  conspiracy  and  combination  laws  were  in- 
voked against  them,  and  men  were  thrown  into  prison,  for  the  crime  of 
jointly  refusing  to  work.  The  newspapers  of  the  country  were  almost 
unanimously  hostile  to  unionism,  and  there  were  but  few  working-men's 
papers  or  journals  which  would  represent  fairly  the  attitude  of  the  unions. 
Attempts  were  made  to  discredit  the  various  organizations  by  misrepresent- 
ing them  and  claiming  that  they  were  opposed  to  religion  and  good  morals, 
and  efforts  were  made  to  suppress  the  unions  altogether.  Thus,  a  combina- 
tion of  merchants  was  formed  in  Boston  for  the  purpose  of  crushing  the 
local  unions  of  shipwrights,  calkers  and  engravers,  $20,000  being  subscribed 
for  this  purpose. 

Late  in  the  thirties  a  shortening  of  the  general  working  day  was  \von 
by  large  classes  of  toilers  in  Baltimore ;  but  the  first  considerable  success  of 
the  organized  workmen  was  obtained  on  the  loth  of  April,  1840,  when 
President  Van  Buren  issued  a  general  order  limiting  to  ten  per  d'ty  the 
hours  of  work  in  the  Navy  Yards  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  and  in  all  govern- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  71 

ment  establishments.  This  was  followed  shortly  afterwards  by  the  adop- 
tion of  a  ten  hour  day  in  many  private  ship-yards.  Here  and  there  the 
unions  scored  successes,  raised  wages,  reduced  hours,  and  improved  condi- 
tions of  employment,  but  the  greater  victories  of  American  unionism  were 
not  achieved  until  after  the  formation  of  the  national  organizations. 

It  was  in  the  year  1850  that  the  Journeymen  Printers  formed  the  first 
national  trade  union  in  the  United  States.  This  association,  which  subse- 
quently became  the  International  Typographical  Union,  rapidly  extends. 1 
its  membership  throughout  New  York.  New  Jersey,  Pe-.msylvania,  Mary- 
land, and  Kentucky,  and  eventually  secured  a  foothold  in  all  the  states  ar.  1 
territories  of  the  United  States  and  in  Canada.  The  growth  of  this  org'ir.i- 
zation  and  its  increasing  strength  led,  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  to  the 
formation  of  other  national  unions.  In  1854  a  national  union  was  estab- 
lished by  the  hatters,  in  1858  the  iron  and  steel  workers,  under  the  name  of 
the  Sors  of  Vulcan,  organized  upon  a  rational  Ix  sis.  and  in  1850,  a  national 
union  of  iron  molders  was  formed  under  the  nanu  of  the  Iron  Moulders 
of  Xorth  America. 

The  growth  of  labor  organizations  was  interrupted  for  a  few  years  by 
the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  \Vnr.  With  the  banning  of  hostilities  HICK'S 
minds  were  diverted  from  everything  but  the  preservation  of  the  I'nioii, 
ard  all  projects  for  the  betterment  of  the  1  iboring  and  other  classes  in 
society  wer.j  temporarily  abandoned.  Toward  the  close  of  the  \\  ar.  how- 
ever, and  especially  dining  the  latter  part  of  the  sixties,  trade  unionism  re- 
ceived .'1:1  impetus  which  carried  it  much  further  than  it  had  ever  "«"'-' 
bcjorc.  The  question  of  slavery,  then  being  solved,  naturally  drew  t'l? 
.".ttentio;;  <  f  men  to  the  jjosition  and  problems  of  free  labor,  and  with  the 
ripening  tv»  of  the  whole  territory  of  the  United  States  to  the  work  of  free 
men,  the  question  of  the  correct  status  of  wage  earners  forced  itself  to  tlu- 
front.  i  lie  expenses  of  the  \Yar  had  necessitated  the  issue  of  paper  money, 
which  had  become  depreciated,  and  this  called  for  a  readjustment  of  wages 
in  order  to  enable  the  workingman  to  live.  A  surplus  of  labor  was  pro- 
duced by  the  return  of  the  soldiers  from  the  \Var,  and  acute  suffering  was 


72  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

felt  iii  many  parts  of  the  country.  Moreover,  cities  were  growing  rapidly, 
division  of  labor  had  been  widely  extended,  and  the  people  of  the  United 
States  were  ready  to  launch  into  manufacturing  on  a  large  scale.  This 
transition  had  gone  on  so  gradually  as  to  be  almost  unmarked,  but  from 
the  close  of  the  War  until  the  crisis  of  1873  the  evolution  began  to  be  real- 
ized and  trade  unionism  grew  as  never  before. 

The  reason  for  this  rapid  development  of  trade  unionism  since  the  Civil 
War  will  be  apparent  from  a  comparison  of  the  statistics  of  the  present  time 
with  those  of  the  beginning  of  the  American  government.  In  1900  there 
were  76,000,000  people  in  the  United  States,  or  more  than  nineteen  times 
the  population  of  1790.  While,  however,  during  this  period  the  rural  pop- 
ulation increased  thirteen  fold,  the  urban  population  increased  two  hundred 
and  twenty  fold,  the  inhabitants  of  cities  and  towns  increasing  from  131,000 
to  over  25,000,000.  In  the  United  States  at  the  present  time  one  out  of  each 
three  persons  lives  in  a  city  or  town,  and  in  the  North  Atlantic  States  two 
out  of  three  persons  are  urban  dwellers.  During  this  period,  moreover,  and 
especially  since  1850,  manufacturing  and  mining  communities  have  grown 
apace  and  have  furnished  recruiting  grounds  for  trade  unions.  During  the 
half  century  elapsing  between  1850  and  1900  the  capital  invested  in  Ameri- 
can manufacturing  has  increased  from  half  a  billion  to  almost  ten  billions 
of  dollars,  the  value  of  products  from  one  billion  to  thirteen  billions,  and  the 
wages  of  workers  from  two  hundred  and  thirty-seven  millions  to  twenty- 
three  hundred  and  twenty-seven  millions  of  dollars;  the  capital  invested  in- 
creasing eighteen,  the  value  of  products,  thirteen,  and  the  wages  of  workers, 
tenfold  during  the  fifty  years.  The  number  of  wage  earners  employed  in 
manufacturing  increased  from  less  than  one  million  to  over  five  and  one- 
quarter  millions  during  the  same  period.  The  extension  of  mining  has  also 
been  rapid.  From  1880  to  1901  the  yearly  output  of  coal  increased  from 
78,000,000  to  293,000,000  short  tons,  and  the  value  of  the  output  of  min- 
erals in  the  United  States  now  amounts  to  considerably  more  than  a  billion 
of  dollars  a  year.  Railroads  and  street  railways  have  also  expanded  to  a 
remarkable  degree.  In  1830  there  were  but  23  miles  of  railroad  in  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  73 

United  States,  and  in  1850;  only  9,021,  \vhile  at  the  present  time  the  mileage 
of  American  railroads  is  over  200,000,  or  greater  than  the  combined  mileage 
of  all  the  railroads  of  Europe.  The  capital  of  American  railroads  is  in 
excess  of  twelve  billions  of  dollars,  and  over  one  million  men  are  employed 
by  them.  The  development  of  street  railways  has  been  equally  rapid,  and 
the  capital  invested  therein  and  the  number  of  men  employed  by  them  are 
steadily  increasing.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  are  annually  attracted 
to  the  expanding  manufacturing,  mining,  and  transportation  industries,  and 
it  is  from  these  wage  earners  that  trade  unionism  is  securing  the  majority  of 
its  adherents. 

It  was  during  the  later  years  of  the  Civil  War,  when  the  progress  above 
({escribed  was  well  under  way,  that  many  of  the  strongest  national  unions 
now  existing  were  formed.  The  locomotive  engineers  organized  in  Detroit 
in  i8(V?,  under  the  name  of  the  Brotherhood  of  the  Footboard,  which  title 
was  subsequently  changed  to  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers. 
In  the  following  year  the  cigar  makers  organi7.ed  upon  a  national  basi>,  and 
in  1865  an  international  union  of  bricklayers  and  masons  was  formed.  The 
Conductors'  Brotherhood,  which  subsequently  became  the  Order  of  Railway 
Conductors,  was  organized  in  Mendota,  Illinois,  in  1868.  and  in  the  next 
decade  many  of  the  national  organizations  now  existing  in  the  I  nited  States 
were  instituted.  During  this  period  the  unions  became  considerably 
stronger,  and  their  purposes  better  known  and  more  highly  regarded.  The 
last  generation  has  witnessed  a  gradual  improvement  in  the  calibre  of  the 
men  in  the  trade  unions  and  a  growth  of  intelligence  in  the  management  of 
the  organizations.  Despite  occasional  defeats  and  defections,  the  trade  union 
movement  has  steadily  grown  in  membership  and  has  redressed  many  of 
the  grievances  under  which  workingmen  formerly  suffered.  Much  of  the 
effort  of  the  unions  has  'been  devoted  to  internal  development,  but  wages 
have  been  increased,  hours  reduced,  conditions  reformed,  and  legislative  con- 
cessions obtained  from  the  national,  state,  and  municipal  governments. 
Since  the  carlv  seventies  manv  well-conducted  trade  union  journals  have 


'74  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

been  established,  some  of  them  being  printed  in  German,  French,  Italian, 
and  the  various  Slavic  languages. 

The  growth  of  trade  unions  in  the  United  States,  as  in  England,  has 
been  gradual  and  permanent.  There  have  been  periods  in  both  countries 
when  the  unions  increased  their  membership  at  an  extremely  rapid  rate,  and 
other  periods  during  which  there  was  stagnation  or  actual  decline.  Each 
succeeding  ilow  of  the  tide,  however,  carried  the  movement  further  and  each 
ebb  was  less  marked  than  its  predecessor.  The  prophets  who,  with  each 
advance  movement,  declared  that  trade  unionism  was  temporary  and  would 
not  live,  have  been  confounded;  each  decade  has  strengthened  the  movement 
and  rooted  its  principles  deeper  and  deeper  in  the  hearts  of  the  workingrnen. 

The  steady  growth  of  trade  unionism  in  the  United  States  may  1)2 
summed  Up  in  the  language  of  Air.  Carroll  D.  Wright,  Commissioner  of 
Labor,  who  says:  "No  matter  what  the  opposition  of  any  particular  period 
was  or  the  character  it  assumed,  no  matter  what  antagonisms  within  dis- 
turbed their  order,  no  matter  how  defections  reduced  their  ranks  at  times, 
and  jealousies  prevented  their  immediate  success,  labor  organizations  from 
1825  continued  through  success  and  failure,  their  propaganda  extending 
first  to  all  great  cities  and  ultimately  to  all  parts  of  the  land." 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  TRADE  UNION 

Gradual  Evolution  of  the  Union.  Government  of  Workingmcn,  by  Workingmen. 
for  Workingmcn.  The  Elasticity  of  the  Trade  Union  Constitution.  Local,  National, 
and  International  Unions.  Nature  of  the  Local  Union.  Its  Democracy.  Local 
Officials.  Relations  between  Local  and  National  Unions.  Basis  of  Representation, 
urc  of  Office.  Salaries.  Who  May  be  Members  of  Trade  Unions.  Initiation  Fees 
Conventions.  Delegates.  Referendum  and  Initiative.  Trade  Union  Officials.  Ten- 
and  Dues.  Union  Cards.  Internal  Government  of  Unions.  A  Typical  Trade  Union 
Constitution.  Trade  Union  By-Laws.  The  Constitution  Follows  the  Trade  Agree- 
ment. 

Tl  1 K  labor  organization  as  it  exists  to-day  is  the  product  of  a  long  evo- 
lution. Unions  did  not  spring  full-grown  from  the  brain  of  man ;  they 
were  not  invented,  not  contrived.  The  constitution  of  the  trade  union,  its 
by-laws,  its  customs  and  traditions,  its  practices  and  policies  have  all  been 
the  result  of  a  gradual  working  out  of  particular  remedies  for  particular 
problems. 

The  constitution  of  the  trade  union,  moreover,  has  been  evolved  by  and 
through  the  efforts  of  workingmcn.  The  trade  union  is  a  government  of 
Workingmcn,  by  \\orkingmen,  for  vvorkingmen,  and  the  framcrs  of  its  con 
stitution  have  been  workingmen.  Although  the  supreme  law  of  the  union 
was  not  formulated  by  highly  paid  constitutional  lawyers,  nevertheless,  it 
represents  in  a  clear  and  definite  manner  the  ideals,  purposes,  and  aims  of 
the  great  majority  of  the  members  of  tiie  organization. 

The  faithfulness  with  which  trade  union  constitutions  represent  trade 
union  sentiment  is  due  to  the  elasticity  of  these  constitutions.  The  gov- 
ernment of  trade  unions  is  loose  and  flexible,  and  neither  constitution  nor 
by-laws  are  rigidly  fixed  and  immutable.  The  object  of  the  leaders,  as  of 
the  rank  and  file  of  trade  unionists,  has  l>een  to  preserve  the  largest  possible 

(75) 


76  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

elasticity  and  freedom  of  movement  to  the  ruling  majority  of  the  organiza- 
tion. In  trade  union  management,  there  is  no  tyranny  of  the  "dead  hand." 
Even  the  most  conservative  unions  are  not  bound  by  a  blind,  unthinking 
worship  of  an  outgrown  instrument,  but  adjust  their  form  of  government 
to  the  changing  needs  and  exigencies  of  the  times. 

To  a  certain  extent,  therefore,  the  formal  written  constitution  of  a 
trade  union  is  rather  a  statement  of  principles  and  a  formulation  of  the  pres- 
ent policy  of  the  union  than  a  hard  and  fast  determination  of  its  future  laws. 
Trade  union  constitutions  are  easily  changed.  The  Constitution  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  may  be  altered  by  a  majority  vote,  in  convention,  and 
in  a  large  number  of  other  unions  the  fundamental  law  of  the  organization 
may  be  changed  by  a  majority  vote  either  of  the  delegates  in  convention  or 
of  the  members  voting  by  referendum,  although  in  some  unions  a  two-thirds 
vote  is  necessary. 

American  unions  are  either  local,  district,  national,  or  international. 
The  local  unions  ordinarily  represent  members  of  a  single  trade  who 
live  and  work  in  a  single  city  or  smalhcommunity.  A  district  organization 
is  a  division  of  a  national  union  usually  exercising  supervision  over  the 
locals  in  a  particular  state.  It  is  chartered  by,  and  subordinate  to,  the  nat- 
ional. National  organizations,  as  a  rule,  extend  to  the  various  states  where 
members  ply  the  particular  trade,  or  are  engaged  in  the  particular  industry 
over  which  such  organizations  exercise  jurisdiction,  although  in  a  few  cases, 
these  national  unions  are  concentrated  in  certain  localities  and  do  not  seek 
to  extend  their  sphere  of  influence.  For  instance,  the  organizations  in  the 
cotton  spinning  trade  are  practically  confined  to  New  England,  and  the 
membership  of  the  Northern  Mineral  Mine  Workers,  although  a  national 
organization,  is  confined  to  the  states  of  Michigan,  Wisconsin  and  Minne- 
sota. Many  of  these  unions  are  styled  international  because  they  include 
Canadian,  and,  as  among  several  of  the  railroad  brotherhoods,  Mexican 
members.  There  is  no  affiliation,  however,  of  American  international 
unions  with  organizations  in  Europe  or  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  with  the 
exception  of  Canada  and  Mexico. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  77 

Historically  considered,  the  local  union  is  father  to  the  national.  Small 
local  organizations  existed  half  a  century  before  national  organizations 
were  established,  and  these  latter  were  usually  formed  by  the  amalgamation 
of  existing  locals  combined  for  the  purposes  of  common  defense  and  general 
welfare;  but  the  overwhelming  majority  of  local  unions  in  all  trades  have 
been  formed  by  the  national  organizations. 

The  local  union  may  thus  be  considered  as  the  basis  or  foundation 
stone  of  the  national  organization.  As  might  be  supposed,  these  local  bodies 
are  extremely  democratic  and  popular  in  their  form  of  government.  They 
are  composed  usually  of  men  working  at  the  same  trade,  men  with  approxi- 
mately equal  wealth,  wages,  and  position  in  the  community  and  connected, 
moreover,  by  lies  of  personal  friendship  or  mutual  acquaintance.  It  is 
perfectly  easy  in  a  town  of  one  hundred  thousand  or  less  to  convene  meet- 
ings of  local  unions  at  short  and  regular  intervals,  and  it  is  therefore  pos- 
sible for  the  local  Ixxly  to  act  directly  upon  all  matters  of  interest  to  it. 
Every  attempt  is  made  by  these  local  Ixxlies  to  maintain  their  free  and  demo- 
cratic nature.  Most  of  the  decisions  and  actions  are  taken  by  jxipular  vote, 
nnd  in  many  cases  e\en  the  appointment  of  committees  devolves  upon  the 
members  instead  of  \\\>on  the  chairman.  The  presiding  officer,  usually 
called  the  president,  is  elected,  as  a  rule,  for  but  six  months  or  a  year  and 
is  rarely  paid  a  salary  for  his  services.  The  secretaries  and  treasurers  of 
local  unions  are  required  to  give  bond  and  are  subject  to  the  close  super- 
vision of  the  members.  The  walking  delegate  or  business  agent  is  usually 
a  salaried  employee  elected  for  a  term  of  six  months  or  one  year,  but  sub- 
ject to  removal  at  any  time  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  memlx.TS  of  his  union. 
Nearly  all  of  the  national  organizations  employ  paid  organi/ers.  who  .•; in- 
constantly engaged  in  forming  local  unions.  The  I'nitcd  Mine  \Vorlavs 
of  America  has  at  present  eighty  jxaid,  and  about  two  hundred  unpaid,  or- 
ganisers devoting  their  time  to  this  work.  Tin-  I  111011  e\]>ended  in  KMU 
the  sum  of  $i  10,000  in  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  new  unions.  'I  he 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  which  is  a  federated  Uxly  conijxjsed  of  the 


78  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

principal  unions  of  the  country,  also  pays  a  large  force  of  organizers  and 
secures  the  gratuitous  services  of  a  great  number  of  volunteer  organizers. 
Upon  the  relation  existing  between  the  local  and  national  organi- 
zations depend  the  character,  power  and  prestige  of  the  union.  In  some  in- 
stances, the  national  organization  has  limited  power  and  exercises  but  slight 
control  over  the  actions  of  the  local  unions ;  whereas,  in  other  cases,  this  con- 
trol and  supervision  is  effective.  Where,  as  in  coal  mining,  the  industry  is 
of  such  a  nature  that  the  employers  in  the  various  parts  of  the  country  com- 
pete with  each  other  for  the  sale  of  their  product,  it  is  highly  essential  that 
power  1x3  concentrated  in  the  national  organization.  In  other  industries, 
where  there  is  less  competition  and  less  need  of  uniformity,  the  demand  for 
l lie  centralization  of  power  in  the  national  union  is  less  keenly  felt.  Gen- 
erally speaking,  the  relation  of  the  local  unions  to  the  national  is  somewhat 
similar  to  the  relation  between  the  state  and  national  governments.  The  local 
unions  have  somewhat  less  power  than  the  state,  but  considerably  greater 
power  than  municipalities.  Broadly  considered,  they  have  the  right  to  do 
anything  not  in  conflict  with  the  national  constitution  or  with  by-laws  passed 
in  accordance  therewith.  In  many  instances,  the  locals  are  supreme  in  de- 
termining the  rates  of  wages,  the  shop  or  factory  rules,  the  fining  or  dis- 
ciplining of  members,  and  the  amount  of  dues  and  initiation  fees.  Even 
where  the  hours  of  labor  are  fixed  at  a  certain  maximum  by  the  national 
union,  the  locals  are  frequently  permitted  to  secure  a  still  further  reduction, 
and  where  the  national  union  prescribes  a  maximum  and  minimum  for  fines 
and  assessments,  the  local  is  generally  allowed  discretion  in  fixing  these 
fines  between  the  maximum  and  the  minimum.  The  administration  of  the 
funds  of  the  local,  except  such  portion  as  is  paid  for  taxes  or  assessments 
to  the  district  or  national  organizations,  is  in  the  hands  of  the  local.  The 
punishment  of  members  for  offense  against  the  union,  for  underbidding 
memljers,  for  working  below  the  union  scale,  for  working  during  strikes, 
for  revealing  the  proceedings  of  the  organization,  for  abusive  language, 
for  misappropriation  of  funds,  for  unexcused  absence,  or  for  other  neglect 
of  duty,  is  under  the  control  of  the  local,  although  appeals  may  be  made 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  79 

from  these  decisions  to  the  national  officers,  or  even  to  the  conventions  of  the 
national  organization.  The  punishment  inflicted  for  failure  to  comply  \vith 
the  rules  of  the  union  may  consist  of  reprimand,  fine,  suspension,  or  expul- 
sion according  to  the  gravity  of  the  offense  and  the  past  record  of  the  of- 
fender. Although  this  punishment  is,  to  a  large  extent,  a  local  matter,  the 
national  organization  sometimes  regulates  the  maximum  amount  of  fines 
or  makes  other  provisions  to  obviate  occasional  injustice. 

Local  unions  are  rarely  vested  with  power  to  inaugurate  a  strike  with- 
out the  advice  and  consent  of  the  national  organization.  As  a  general  rule, 
the  national  officers  do  not  have  the  right  to  call  a  local  strike,  but  merely 
have  the  privilege  of  \etoing  the  application  of  a  local  union  that  contem- 
plates engaging  in  a  strike,  thus  acting  as  a  brake  upon,  and  not  as  a  stimu- 
lus to,  hasty  action.  In  practically  all  unions,  the  national  officers  are  more 
conservative  and  more  desirous  of  maintaining  peace  than  the  local  officials 
or  members  who,  not  feeling  the  same  degree  of  responsibility,  frequently 
overestimate  the  importance  of  a  petty  quarrel  and  thoughtlessly  rush  into 
strikes  which  may  involve  the  whole  organization. 

The  government  of  a  national  labor  organization,  like  the  government 
of  the  United  States  is  composed  of  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  de- 
partments. The  jxnvcr  to  direct  and  administer  its  affairs  is  entrusted  In 
representatives  selected  by  the  local  unions.  These  executive  powers  are 
vested  in  a  president  and  a  board  of  directors;  the  legislative,  in  a  delegate 
convention,  while  the  judicial  function  devolves  upon  the  president  or  sec- 
retary of  the  organization,  with  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  executive  board. 
I  he  legislation  of  the  national  union  is  carried  on  by  means  of  conventions 
comjjosed  of  delegates  from  the  various  locals,  or  by  the  actual  \otcs  of  the 
members  of  the  union  themselves.  The  representation  of  the  !oc:ils  is  in 
some  organizations  based  entirely  ujion  the  number  of  their  members,  re- 
sembling in  this  respect  the  representation  of  the  \arious  states  in  the  I'nited 
States  House  of  Representatives.  The  majority  of  unions.  ho\vever,  give 
the  larger  locals  a  less  than  proportionate  representation  in  the  national  con- 
ventions; for  illustration,  the  I'.rotherhood  of  ( 'arpenters  gives  one  vote  to 


80  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

a  local  having  TOO  members  or  less,  two  votes  to  locals  having  from  TOO  to 
500  meml>ers,  three  votes  to  locals  having  from  500  to  1,000  members,  and 
four  votes  to  locals -having  over  one  thousand  members.  This  system  of 
giving  the  various  locals  a  number  of  representatives  increasing  with  their 
membership,  but  not  increasing  in  proportion,  is  somewhat  like  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  various  states  of  the  country  in  the  electoral  college,  or  in 
the  nominating  conventions  of  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties.  The 
conventions,  like  the  meetings  of  the  locals,  are  conducted  in  a  broad  and 
democratic  spirit.  The  ordinary  laws  of  parliamentary  procedure  are  ad- 
hered to,  but  no  attempt  is  made  at  "gag"  rule,  and  every  opportunity  is 
afforded  to  all  delegates  to  present  fully  the  wishes  and  claims  of  their  re- 
spective locals.  Generally  speaking,  especially  in  the  older  and  more  firmly 
established  organizations,  the  expenses  of  the  conventions,  including  the 
railroad  fares  to  and  from  the  place  of  meeting,  are  defrayed  by  the  national 
union. 

In  some  organizations,  the  system  of  government  is  even  more  demo- 
cratic. In  many  unions,  there  is  a  growing  tendency  to  legislate  by  means 
of  the  referendum  and  to  limit  as  much  as  possible  the  frequency  of  conven- 
tions. Ordinarily,  conventions  are  called  annually,  but  in  several  unions 
they  are  called  but  once  in  two,  three,  four,  or  five  years,  and  in  the  case  of 
the  Granite  Cutters  there  has  been  no  convention  since  the  year  1880. 
Legislation  in  some  unions  may  be  proposed  by  a  given  number  of  members 
or  by  the  executive  and  may  then  be  acted  upon  by  the  vote  of  the  entire 
membership.  Much  of  the  legislation  of  a  number  of  the  unions  is  carried 
on  in  this  way,  and  in  a  large  percentage  of  organizations,  amendments  to 
the  constitution  are  adopted  either  by  a  referendum  vote  alone,  or  by  the 
action  of  the  convention  supplemented  by  a  referendum  vote.  In  other 
unions,  including  the  Boot  and  Shoe  Workers,  the  Cigar  Makers,  the 
Tailors,  the  Bakers,  and  the  Mine  Workers,  officers  are  elected  by  refer- 
endum vote,  with  the  result  that  lobbying  and  electioneering  at  the  conven- 
tion are  done  away  with  and  the  delegates  are  permitted  to  devote  them- 
selves exclusively  to  the  more  important  business  of  the  organization. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  8 1 

The  officials  of  the  national  trade  unions,  wliclhcr  elected  in  conven- 
tion or  by  referendum,  consist  usually  of  a  president,  one  or  more  vice- 
presidents,  a  secretary  or  a  secretary-treasurer,  and  an  executive  board,  who 
are  ordinarily  elected  for  a  term  of  one  or  two  years,  but  may  be.  and  in 
many  instances  are,  reflected.  The  President  of  the  Carpenters  held  office 
for  twenty  years,  and  the  late  Mr.  Arthur  remained  Chief  of  the  Locomotive 

*  9 

Engineers  for  twenty-nine  years.  In  the  United  Mine  \Yorkcrs  this  ten- 
dency of  constantly  reflecting  the  same  president  has  been  less  manifest — 
prior"  to  my  incumbency  the  term  of  office  with  one  exception  never  exceeded 
two  years. 

The  chief  officials  of  the  national  trade  unions  are  almost  invariably 
on  salary  and  devote  their  entire  time  to  the  work  of  the  organization.  In 
the  case  of  the  railroad  brotherhoods,  the  rates  of  remuneration  arc  'high. 
amounting  in  some  cases  to  $6,000  per  year,  but  with  this  exception.  I  be- 
lieve, no  national  officer  receives  a  higher  salary  than  $3,000.  The  probable 
range  of  salaries  for  trade  union  presidents  lies,  at  the  present  time,  between 
$1,000  and  $1,800,  although  in  a  number  of  organizations  the  pay  .of  officials 
is  still  less.  Officers'  salaries  are  regulated  to  a  considerable  extent  by  the 
numerical  strength  of  the  unions  or  by  the  wages  of  its  mcmlx?rs.  In  a 
few  national  unions  having  a  limited  membership  the  executive  officers  work 
at  their  trades,  and  in  these  cases  their  remuneration  is  purely  nominal. 

It  is  impossible  in  a  brief  chapter  to  give  a  complete  account  of  any 
one  of  the  one  hundred  constitutions  of  national  trade  unions  in  lite  I  'iiilcd 
States.  The  constitution  usually  prescribes  rules  for  such  matters  a>  eligi- 
bility  to  membership,  times  for  holding  meetings,  initiation  lees,  due-  an>l 
assessments  of  members,  general  finances,  discipline,  laws  for  expulsion  and 
reinstatement  of  members,  rules  for  the  election  of  officers,  duties  of  presi- 
dents, vice-presidents,  secretaries,  and  treasurers,  conduct  of  strikes,  lock 
outs,  and  boycotts,  work  of  organizers,  character  and  nature  of  supplies, 
use  of  the  laljel.  management  of  the  official  journal,  time-  ami  caiisrs  for 
holding'  general  or  social  conventions,  administration  of  insurance,  order 


82  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

of  business,  and  a  large  number  of  other  matters.  The  member  of  a  trade 
union  is  ordinarily  provided  with  a  card  to  signify  his  membership  and  with 
a  button  or  badge,  which  in  many  cases  he  is  expected  to  wear  about  his 
person.  Most  constitutions  prescribe  methods  for  securing  and  controlling 
the  collection  of  dues,  the  usual  system  being  that  of  stamps  affixed  to  a 
book. 

Although  the  constitution  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  is  supposed  to 
represent  the  fundamental  and  organic  law  of  the  union,  this  constitution 
does  not  take  precedence  over  the  trade  agreement.  It  is  specifically  stipu- 
lated in  many  contracts  with  operators  that  nothing  in  the  national,  state, 
or  local  constitutions  will  be  allowed  to  conflict  with  any  provision  of  the 
trade  agreement. 


CHAPTER  XI 


AMERICAN  TRADE  UNIONS  OF  TO-DAY 

Various  Kinds  of  Trade  Unions.  Trade  Unions  and  Respectability.  Trade 
Unions  Affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Centralized  Unions.  The 
Growing  Necessity  of  Centralization.  The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America.  Inter- 
state Agreements.  A  Million  Dollar  Defense  Fund.  The  Garment  Workers,  and  the 
Sweated  Trades.  The  Cigar  Makers,  the  Label,  and  Trade  Benefits.  The  Carpenter:; 
and  Joiners.  Various  Other  Unions. 


\/\  *'^^Y  people  speak  of  trade  unionism  as  though  all  organizations  of 
*  *  *•  wage  workers  were  identical  in  government,  purpose,  and  action.  A 
commendation  of  one  union  is  interpreted  as  a  commendation  of  all,  and  an 
attack  upon  one  as  an  attack  upon  all. 

There  arc  almost  as  many  kinds  and  varieties  of  unions  as  there  arc 
kinds  and  varieties  of  industries.  Trade  unions  differ  from  one  another 
with  differences  in  the  trades  or  industries  which  they  represent.  There  is 
no  more  similarity  between  a  union  of  glasshlowers  and  one  of  waiters,  or 
a  union  of  tyjjescttcrs  and  one  of  street  laborers,  than  there  is  between  the 
occupations  engaged  in  by  these  men.  Some  organizations  are  forme;! 
merely  on  local,  some,  on  national  or  international  lines;  some  organizations 
have  but  a  weak  federal  government,  others  are  strongly  centnili/ed  ;  SOUK- 
organizations  arc  composed  of  men  of  the  highest  skill  and  training,  others, 
•>f  workmen  whose  training  has  been  acquired  in  a  few  days.  Kvcn  this 
.Iocs  not  exhaust  the  differences.  There  are  unions  composed  chiefly  of 
native  workmen,  others,  almost  entirely  of  newly  landed  immigrants;  many 
unions  consist  chiefly  or  exclusively  of  men,  others,  overwhelmingly  <>! 
women.  Some  unions  —  but  these  arc  few  —  do  r.ot  admit  negroes  and  make 
other  discriminations,  while  the  great  bulk  of  organizations  throw  open  their 
.U)ors  to  men  of  every  race,  creed,  or  nationality  ,  sumc  n;iions  are  exclusive 

(83; 


84  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

and  aristocratic,  other  organizations — and  these  are  the  majority — are  all- 
inclusive  and  extremely  democratic.  - 

Unions,  moreover,  are  divided  according  to  the  status'  of  their  mem- 
bers and  to  the  nature  of  their  industry.  There  are  unions  of  government 
employees,  such  as  the  letter  carriers  or,  to  a  less  extent,  typesetters  and 
pressmen  in  the  government  printing  office.  There  are  organizations  of 
municipal  employees,  such  as  school  teachers.  There  are  many  organiza- 
tions which  cannot  resort  to  strikes  and  many  which  must  depend  entirely 
lor  their  success  upon  the  label.  There  are  organizations  in  trades  pro- 
tected by  the  monopoly  of  the  employers,  and  organizations  in  the  superla- 
tively competitive  sweated  trades.  There  are  organizations  with  highly 
developed  benefit  features,  paying  their  members  or  their  families  in  case 
of  death,  sickness,  accident,  or  loss  of  employment,  and  there  are  others 
which  have  no  benefit  features  whatever.  There  are  unions  which  insist 
upon  strict  apprentice  rules  and  others  which  admit  any  man  capable  of 
earning  the  standard  wage.  There  are  a  few  unions  which  adopt  the  policy 
of  limiting  the  number  of  their  members  or  the  amount  of  work  which  they 
may  do,  and  there  are  others,  the  overwhelming  majority,  which  place  no 
such  restriction.  There  are  unions  which  embrace  only  persons  who  per- 
form a  particular  function  or  who  work  at  a  particular  trade  or  operation, 
and  others  which  embrace  all  persons  employed  in  a  great  and  diversified 
industry.  Finally,  there  are  unions,  the  so-called  ''federal''  unions,  which 
unite  into  local  groups  men  of  diverse  and  entirely  dissimilar  occupation 
and  skill,  and  which  serve  as  a  recruiting  ground  for  other  and  more  special- 
ized unions. 

Many  persons,  apathetic  or  hostile  to  trade  unionism,  seem  either  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously  to  divide  labor  organizations  into  three  classes, 
respectable,  semi-respectable,  and  disreputable.  These  people  speak  of  or- 
ganizations like  the  Typographical  Union  or  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomo- 
tive Engineers,  as  lacing  model  institutions  and  regret  that  other  trade 
unions  are  not  of  the  same  type  and  character.  This  classification  is  like 
dividing  men  into  adults,  youths,  and  children.  The  child  becomes  a  youth, 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  85 

and  the  youth  a  man,  and  in  the  same  manner  the  unions  now  denounced  as 
radical  and  unreliable  will  in  due  time  attain  to  complete  and  full  Hedged 
respectability.  There  was  a  time  when  the  locomotive  engineers  and  the 
typographical  unions  were  assailed  for  their  alleged  violent  methods,  for 
their  lack  of  respectability,  for  their  failure  to  comply  with  the  highest  re- 
quirements of  trade  unionism,  just  as  many  organizations  of  more  recent 
origin  have  since  been  attacked.  The  truth  is  that  each  organization  of 
wage  earners  must  gradually  fight  its  way  against  the  opposition  of  men 
who  criticise  instead  of  aid  it  to  a  position  where  its  word  is  as  good  as  its 
bond,  and  where  its  actions  meet  with  the  approval  of  well-intentioned  men 
in  all  parts  of  the  community.  There  necessarily  is  a  gradual  evolution,  a 
gradual  sifting  out  of  the  worst  elements  in  the  organization,  and  the  ac- 
quisition of  a  sound  and  conservative  policy.  At  the  beginning,  when  the 
efforts  of  the  new  union  are  derided  and  decried,  when  the  attempts  to 
better  the  conditions  of  the  workers  are  met  with  the  scorn,  hatred,  and 
constant  opposition  of  employers,  it  is  small  wonder  that  the  organized  men, 
new  to  the  methods  and  the  ideals  of  trade  unionism  and  smarting  under 
the  sense  of  their  weakness  and  inexperience,  resort  to  measures  unwise 
and  injurious  to  themselves.  A  union  becomes  stronger  with  wisdom  and 
wiser  with  strength.  A  union  that  succeeds  in  winning  its  strikes  gains  not 
only  better  conditions  of  life,  but  also  the  respect  of  its  former  antagonist 
and  the  wisdom  and  conservatism  which  comes  from  an  assured  position. 
I  desire  in  this  chapter  to  give  a  brief  account  of  a  few  of  the  various 
classes  of  unions.  It  would  not,  of  course  be  possible  to  describe  all  the 
unions  in  the  United  States.1  or  even  to  give  an  adequate  description  of  a 
small  number  of  them. 


'The  following  is  a  list  of  trade  unions  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  together  with  the  vote  to  which  tiny  were  entitled  during  the  last  live  years. 
To  estimate  the  legally  rcogni/.ed  membership  of  these  unjons.  it  is  only  necessary  to 
multiply  the  number  of  votes  to  which  they  are  entitled  by  100.  For  reasons  ^neii  in 
the  chapter  on  the  Federation  of  American  Labor,  these  flumes  are  probably  50  per 
cent,  or  more  below  the  real  membership.  The  actual  membership  of  the  unions  affili- 
ated with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  at  the  present  time  (.August,  lyoj)  is 
probably  two  million. 


86 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 


Organization. 

1898. 

1899. 

1900. 

I90I. 

1902. 

* 

5 
61 

* 

102 
1  60 

• 

29I 
146 

4' 

95 

43 
70 

59 
3* 

800 
3i 
3<7 
3oo 
57 

20 

5 
13 

23 

6 
t 
'<* 

60 

"5 

65 
19 

8 

*  f 

n 
61 

9 

43 
>i 

2 

82 

1 

7 
28 
191 
80 

20 
150 

10 

347 

42 
23 
21 
22 

43 
259 
355 
',854 
5 
4 
1 

84 
97 
84 
66 

Actors*  National  Protective  Union  ;  

3 
'5 

Allied  Metal  Mech.  Bicycle  Workers,  International  

7 
7 

21 
30 

9 
9 
31 
40 

22 

* 

45 
69 

Bakers  and  Confectioners'  International  

64 
116 

100 

I 
94 
5 

32 

J 

107 
3 

41 

10 

27 

28 
42 
18 

200 

7 
270 

75 
27 

183 
4 
47 
14 
51 
15 
36 
42 
20 
200 
13 
321 
200 
33 

235 

88 
17 
73 
35 
53 
47 
26 
400 
25 
339 
2jO 
49 

Boot  and  Shoe  Workers*  Union  

16 

200 

5 
266 
5° 
15 

Cloth  Hat  and  Capmakers  United  

3 
7 
9 

3 

JO 
12 

4 
12 
18 
2 

5 

12 
2O 

IO 

Chainmakers*  National  Union  

20 

12 
19 

20 

18 
18 
5 

48 
27 
18 
7 

73 
48 
18 

IO 

Engineers,  National  Brotherhood  of  Coal  Hoisting  

Firemen,  International  Brotherhood  of  Stationary  '  

ii 

24 

41 
14 
154 
72 

2 

70 

Garment  Workers  of  America,  United  .  .  . 

43 
»° 
46 
5 

42 
75 
3 
48 
5 
6 
8 

74 
80 

2 

59 

Glass  Workers'  Union,  Flint  

Grinders*  National  Union  Table  Knife  .  .     .  '.  . 

6 

Glass  Workers'  International  Associati  n,  Amalgamated  

2 

21 

48 
60 

3 
23 
103 

73 

3O 

25 
60 

20 
20 
60 

Hatters  of  North  America,  United  ... 

Hat  and  Capmakers,  Cloth  

So 

80 

80 

80 
60 

9 
250 

32 
14 
20 

21 
150 

1,891 

Iron  Workers,  Bridge  and  Structural,  International  Associat  on  

9 

200 
21 

6 

Longshoremen's  Association  of  United  States  

80 
4 

130 

10 

Lathers^  International  Union  of,  Wood  Work  and  Metal  

I^adies*  Garment  Workers,  International  

Metal  Workers'  International  Union,  United  

10 
15° 
225 
1,010 

Moulders'  Union  of  North  America,  Iron  

1  20 

100 
160 

15° 
J36 
400 

Mine  Workers  of  A  merica,  United  

Mine  Managers  and  Assistants*  Mutual  Aid  Association,  National.. 

7 

6 

5 

4 

Miners^  Western  Federation  of  

Metal  Polishers,  Buffers  a*  d  Platers,  etc  

42 
60 
10 

48 
60 
'7 
15 

5° 
62 
32 

20 

56 
81 
55 
45 

Musicians,  American  Federation  of  .*.  

Meat  Cutters  and  Butcher  Workmen  

Metal  Workers'  International  Association,  Amalgamated  Sheet... 

ORGANIZED    LABOR 


Organization. 

1898. 

1899.       1900. 

fgoi. 

1902. 

Painters  of  America,  Brotherhood  of  

43 
1 

13 

45 
I 

•5 

2«o 

4 

22 

280 
18 
23 

343 
«r 

23 

57 

Papermakers,  United  Brotherhood  of  

Patternmakers'  National  league  

Piano  and  Organ  Workers'  I'nion  

Potter's  National  Union  of  America  

Printing  Pressmen,  International  

58 

40 

1 

7* 
40 
I 

9t 

45 

I 

IOO 

87 

"i 
128 

f 

4 
7 
49 

t 

i 

98 

i 

16 
tt 
15 

4J 
18 
46 
109 

44 
393 
41 
ic6 
n 

s 

71 
l.tf 

8<. 
5 

a 

1«4 
tt 
4 
2 
<t 
>3 

«;« 

4-S 

J7 

Plumbers,  Gas  Fitters,  Steam  Filters,  etc  

Pottcrsi  Stones  are  

Powder  and  High  Explosive  Workers  

Printers,  Plate,  of  United  States  of  America,  National  

4 

4 
«3 

A 

7 
29 
I 
5 

Potters,  National  Brotheihood  of  Opeiative  

Paving  Cutters'  Union  i  I  United  Stales  of  America  

<  )il  ami  Gas  Well  Workers'  Union,  International  

4 

Ouarrvmen's  National  I'nion  

Quarrvmen'i  National  I'nion,  Slate  

I 
30 

Railway  Einploves'  Amalgamated  Association,  Street  

30 

35 

43 

Seamen's  I'nion  of  America,  National  

40 

'o 

40 

21 

6 

4» 

24 

9 

6a 

17 
13 

Stove  Mounters'  Intcniation  .1  Union  '.  .  .        

Stoneware  Potters  

Sl«atn  and  Hot  Water  Filters  and  1  lelpcrs  

20 

18 

15 
at 

Shitl,  Waist  and  Laundry  Workers            

Stereotvpers  and  Elcctrotypers'  I'nion  of  North  Anvrica   Internal'! 

Tailor*'  Union  of  America,  Journcx  men  

5° 

.§ 

46 
« 
1 

5" 
3° 
J'O 
4> 

32 

3 

73 

sV) 

60 

34 

4 
3 

21 

47 
80 

93 
58 
3<55 
<3 

n 

7 
3 

20 

.     94 
Bo 

Tnealrii  al  Slage  Employes,  National  

Typographical  Union,  Inlerna',  ional  

Textile  Workers  of  America,  National  Union  o  

Trunk  and  Bag  \\  orkers  .                 

17 

£ 

3 

5' 
3 

J 

5 

3 

121 

2 
151 

5 

a 

5 

2 

3 

13 

^ 
3  -'4 
Ji 

...      i*  \e*    -     t-       lcc"VP' 

I  '    h    1            crn'     .           .•         It'ii       f 

13 

.t-i'i 
aiS 
ifi 

American  Federation  of  l.ahor: 

146 
Si 
IO 

i«3 
i'7 
11 

Stale  Branches  

Tnl»l  vntf  '.  nl"  nfTitialrd   llllinMI 

a.Sfli 

t.Ml 

V717    '       K  iAO 

10  ro« 

•Charter  revoked. 


t  Sii!i|ien<lrd  fnr  no   -payment  of  per  capita  tax. 
••Merged  with  Amalgam  ated  Wood  Workers. 


ft  Disbanded 


The  strongest  unions  of  the  present  day  are  those  which  are  liighl) 
centralized.  As  in  |x^litical  government,  so  in  the  government  of  trade 
unions,  there  is  always  a  contest  !>et\vcen  the  advocates  of  a  strong  central- 
ized government,  in  which  the  national  union  exercises  effective  control 
over  its  locals,  and  a  decentralized  government,  in  which  the  locals  reserve 
a  large  amount  of  power.  The  fact  that  some  unions  are  centralized  and 


ORGANIZhD    LABOR 

others  decentralized  is  not  accidental  or  arbitrary  but  is  due  to  the  charac- 
ter and  nature  of  the  industry.  Where,  in  such  industries  as  coal  mining 
or  steel  manufacturing,  competition  between  employers  is  keen  and  is  felt 
in  all  parts  of  the  field,  it  is  essential  that  the  government  of  the  trade  union 
be  centralized,  so  that  competitive  conditions  can  exist  in  the  labor  market 
throughout  the  whole  country.  The  rate  of  pay  of  Illinois  coal  miners  is 
fixed  in  such  a  way  as  to  enable  the  Illinois  operators  to  compete  on  fair 
terms  with  those  of  Indiana,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  other  portions  of  the 
country.  Such  a  system  of  securing  to  all  employers  fair,  competitive  con- 
ditions in  the  labor  market  could  be  adopted  only  by  a  strongly  centralized 
union,  regulating  the  rates  of  pay,  the  hours  of  labor,  the  conditions  of 
work,  and  the  policy  of  war  or  peace  in  the  various  parts  of  the  country. 
Even  where  employers  do  not  compete,  as  in  the  building  trades,  unions 
have  tended  to  become  centralized  by  reason  of  the  competition  of  the  work- 
men themselves.  The  wages  of  New  York  carpenters  cannot  remain  high 
so  long  as  those  of  other  cities  are  low,  since  a  Philadelphia  carpenter  can 
go  to  New  York  or  Baltimore  at  a  cost  less  than  a  day's  wage.  The  mo- 
obility  of  labor  in  the  United  States  is  such  that  unions  are  necessarily  be- 
coming more  and  more  centralized,  in  order  to  regulate  the  competition 
between  the  men  in  a  given  trade,  wherever  their  place  of  residence. 

One  of  the  most  centralized  labor  unions  is  that  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America.  This  organization,  the  largest  labor  union  in  the 
world,  now  has  260,000  members  upon  its  rolls,  not  including  some  60,000 
or  70,000  men  who  are  in  arrears  for  dues  or  assessments.  It  is  organized 
upon  industrial,  rather  than  upon  trade,  lines.  Every  man  or  boy  working 
in  or  about  the  mines,  whether  as  engineer,  fireman,  ash-man,  barn-man, 
teamster,  blacksmith,  carpenter,  gate-man,  oiler,  inspector,  loader,  culm- 
driver,  washery-man,  laborer,  slate  picker,  miner  or  any  other  of  the  scores 
of  different  occupations,  is  eligible  to  membership.  The  union  is  composed 
of  men  of  many  nationalities  and  races.  Colored  persons  are  freely  ad- 
mitted to  membership  and  enjoy  all  the  rights  granted  to  other  members, 
and  representatives  of  twenty  nations,  speaking  twenty  different  languages, 


UNION  LABEL  BULLETIN 


ISSUED  BY  AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR;  HEADQUARTERS  423-425  6  SHEET.  N.  W..  WAttWGTON,  0.  0. 


DEMAND  THE  UNION  LABEL 


I,. \IUI.s    oh      Mil      DlKKI-'.KKM     'J'kAIM-     t'NIoN- 


CHILD  WORKERS  IN  THE  SOUTHERN  COTTON  MILLS 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  89 

are  found  upon  its  rolls.  The  union  is  highly  centralized,  the  national  or- 
ganization exercising  a  veto  power  over  the  calling  of  strikes.  The  union 
has  entered  into  inter-state  agreements  covering  the  competitive  territory 
of  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  \Yestern  Pennsylvania,  in  the  one  case,  and 
the  competitive  territory  of  Missouri,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  and  Indian  Terri- 
tory upon  the  other ;  it  also  has  trade  agreements  with  the  operators  of  Iowa 
Michigan,  Alabama,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Montana.  Central  Pennsylvania 
and  portions  of  West  Virginia.  The  dues  are  low,  averaging  about  forty 
cents  a  month.  The  national  union  is  supported  chiefly  by  a  monthly  tax 
of  ten  cents  per  member,  but  additional  assessments  may  be  levied.  Mem- 
l>ership  is  open  to  boys,  but  under  sixteen  years  of  age,  they  pay  only  one- 
half  dues  and  assessments  and  have  only  one-half  a  vote. 

This  organization  has  grown  more  rapidly  than  any  trade  union  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  It  has  locals  in  every  cord  producing  state  in  the 
country  and  carries  on  its  rolls  over  two-thirds  of  the  500,000  coal  mine 
workers  in  the  United  States.  It  has  been  one  of  the  most  successful  na- 
tional unions  in  the  country  in  its  strikes,  which  have  usually  extended  over 
a  large  territory.  The  organization  has  at  this  time  a  special  defense  fund 
of  $  i  ,000,000  but  has  no  insurance  or  benefit  features. 

One  of  the  typical  unions  in  the  sweated  trades  is  the  United  Gamier.: 
Workers  of  America,  an  organization  composed  of  tailors,  cutters,  trim- 
mers, lining  cutters,  and  other  men  engaged  in  the  clothing  trade.  There 
is  no  industry  in  the  United  States  that  has  so  lent  itself  to  sweating  as  tlu- 
manufacture  of  ready  made  clothing.  The  conditions  which  have  prevailed 
in  this  trade, especially  in  Xew  York, Chicago,  Philadelphia, and  other  large 
cities,  have  been  terrible,  and  have  been  the  subject  of  a  number  of  legisla- 
tive investigations.  P.y  the  organization  of  the  Garment  Workers,  how- 
ever, and  of  several  other  trade  unions,  these  abuses  have,  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent been  mitigated.  The  union  is  composed  largely  of  immigrants,  CS- 
jK-cially  of  Russian  and  Polish  Jews,  Scandinavians,  Italians,  and  Poles. 
It  is  an  organization  chietlv  centered  in  a  few  large  cities. 


90  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

The  greatest  difficulties  which  the  Garment  Workers  have  experienced 
have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  a  steady  How  of  immigration  is  continually 
|K>uring  in  upon  them,  and  from  the  further  fact  that  the  industry  is  broken 
up  into-  a  number  of  small  establishments.  On  the  other  hand,  the  union 
has  derived  support  from  the  factory  laws  in  the  various  states,  and  more 
especially  from  the  successful  and  extensive  use  of  the  union  label,  without 
which  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  organization  could  have  attained  its  present 
strength.  The  Garment  Workers'  label,  in  existence  since  1891,  has  been 
largely  advertised,  and  there  is  a  strong  demand  on  the  part  of  workingmen 
and  other  members  of  society  for  label-made  goods.  The  organization  has 
a  well-edited  monthly  journal.  The  local  dues  are  fixed  at  a  minimum  of 
2$$  a  month,  or  50^  a  month  for  cutters.  Special  facilities  are  extended 
to  women  workers,  and  lower  initiation  fees  are  charged  to  unions  with  a 
majority  of  female  members. 

The  Cigarmakers'  International  Union  of  America  is  the  classic  in- 
stance of  an  American  organization  depending  largely  on  its  insurance 
features.  This  union  has  for  more  than  a  generation  attempted  to  strengthen 
the  economic  condition  of  its  workers  by  developing  an  extended  system 
of  benefits.  The  initiation  fee  is  $3.00,  the  dues  30^  a  week,  or  over  $15.00 
a  year,  which  are  exceptionally  high  payments,  especially  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  cigar  makers  are  not  particularly  high-paid  workers.  During 
the  last  twenty  years  the  union  expended  over  eight  millions  of  dollars. 
The  Cigar  Makers'  Union  has  gradually  and  steadily  increased  in  member- 
ship, and  through  its  out-of-work  benefits,  the  organization  maintained  its 
strength  even  in  the  bad  years  following  the  crisis  of  1893.  It  has  fought 
a  number  of  strikes,  winning  a  large  percentage  of  them,  and  it  has  secured 
for  its  members  an  eight-hour  day.  By  means  of  the  label,  of  which  over 
three  hundred  million  have  been  issued,  the  union,  despite  the  great  influx 
of  immigrants,  has  maintained  relatively  high  wages. 

The  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners  of  America  is  a 
typical  organization  of  the  building  trades.  After  unsuccessful  efforts  in 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  QI 

1854  and  1867,  a  national  union  was  finally  established  in  1881  with  a 
membership  of  two  thousand.  This  number  has  increased  to  over  sixty- 
eight  thousand  in  1900,  and  in  July  I  of  that  year,  there  were  679  local 
unions,  with  an  approximate  membership  of  150,000.  Of  these  locals.  40 
were  conducting  business  in  the  German  language,  6  in  French,  2  in  Bo- 
hemian, 2  in  Jewish,  and  i  in  Scandinavian.  The  union  has  benefit  fea- 
tures, having  expended  over  $53,000  in  1900  for  funeral  and  disability  bene- 
fits. It  has  been  in  numerous  conflicts  and  has  had  a  series  of  jurisdictional 
disputes,  the  last  of  which  was  with  the  Amalgamated  Wood  Workers. 
This  dispute  has  attracted  wide-spread  attention  in  labor  circles,  owing  to 
the  refusal  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  to  accept  the  award  of  a  board 
c;f  arbitration,  which  rendered  a  decision  adverse  to  its  claims. 

There  are  many  other  unions  deserving  of  discussion  and  meriting  ex- 
tended study.  Among  these  are  the  International  Typographical  L'nion  of 
Xorth  America,  which  has  had  over  fifty  years  of  interesting  history ;  the 
International  Longshoremen's  Association,  which  comprises  all  the  dock 
laborers  on  the  Great  Lakes  and  forms  trade  agreements  with  the  shippers; 
the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  Raiiway  Employees  of  America, 
which  is  a  comparatively  recent  organization,  but  one  whose  growth  has 
been  very  rapid;  the  National  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron.  Steel,  and 
Tin  Workers,  which  in  1901  conducted  a  struggle  against  the  t'nited  States 
Steel  Corporation.  There  are  numerous  other  organizations  in  the  build- 
ing, printing,  textile,  glass  and  pottery,  wood  working,  metal  and  ma- 
chine, and  transportation  industries.  The  various  railnxid  brotherhoods 
have  had  a  long  and  interesting  history  and  have  grown  yearly  in  power 
and  prestige.  There  are  also  organizations  of  retail  clerks,  team  drivers, 
horse  slux-rs,  jewelry  workers,  letter  carriers,  theatrical  stage  employees, 
and  scores  of  other  classes  of  employees.  One  of  the  most  interesting  forms 
of  trade  unions  is  the  federal  union,  which  consists  of  men  of  various 
trades  and  serves  as  a  teni|H>rary  union  from  which  permanent  organiza- 
tions are  formed  as  soon  as  there  are  sufficient  members  in  a  given  trade  to 


92  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

warrant  the  creation  of  a  new  union.  The  members  of  all  these  various 
unions,  international,  national  and  local,  represent  the  rank  and  file  of  or- 
ganized labor.  At  the  present  time  there  are  probably  more  than  two  and 
a  half  million  trade  unionists  in  the  United  States.  As  has  been  shown, 
these  organizations  differ  in  many  respects,  but,  underlying  all,  there  is  a 
certain  spirit  in  common,  a  desire  for  concerted  action,  and  a  more  or  less 
clear  conception  of  solidarity  and  brotherhood. 


CHAPTER  XII 
ORGANIZED  LABOR  VERSUS  UNORGANIZED  LABOR 

An  Age  of  Organization.  Organization  Especially  Necessary  to  Workingmcn. 
The  Separation  of  Wage  Earner  from  Wage  Payer.  Defenselessness  of  the  Individual 
Workingman.  The  Track  Layer  and  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad.  Free  Competition 
for  Jobs  at  its  Worst.  The  Influence  of  the  Employer  upon  the  Life,  Health,  Safety. 
Manners,  Morals,  and  Character  of  the  Workingman.  What  Freedom  of  Contract 
Means  to  Unorganized  Workingmen.  It  Takes  Two  to  Make  a  Contract.  Advantages 
of  Trade  Unionism.  Its  Absolute  Necessity. 

TIIF  age  is  an  age  of  organization.  Not  only  in  industry,  but  in  every 
field  and  pbase  of  human  life,  have  men  combined  into  groups  and 
worked  as  a  unit.  Thus,  we  have  political  organizations;  organizations  of 
men  engaged  in  various  trades  or  industries;  organizations  of  lawyers,  doc- 
tors, ministers;  organizations  of  men  into  clubs,  into  friendly  or  benefit 
societies;  organizations  for  the  pursuit  of  arts,  of  science,  of  education; 
organisations  of  men  into  universities,  organizations  of  men  into  cities, 
states,  and  nations,  and,  finally,  organizations  extending  over  national 
boundaries  and  reaching  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men,  the  organizations 
called  churches.  F.  very  where,  look  where  we  may.  we  see  men  of  all  classes 
rind  all  characters  organizing  for  all  purixises,  and  effecting  by  concerted  ac- 
tion what  cannot  be  accomplished  by  individual  action.  The  age  is  an  ago 
of  organization,  moreover,  of  the  representation  of  the  many  by  the  few.  of 
conventions,  of  the  interchange  of  thought  among  men  united  in  purpose, 
of  unity  of  action  and  concert  of  management.  \\hat  is  true  of  all  other 
classes  is  true  to  no  greater  and  no  less  extent  of  workingmen.  \Yhat  these 
organisations  are  to  various  clashes  of  men  in  society,  trade  unions  are  to 
the-  workingmen  in  the  pursuit  of  their  industrial  happiness. 

\Vere  the  \\orkingmen  of  the  t'nited  States  not  a  separate  class,  with 
separate  class  interests,  there  would  be  less  necessitv  for  their  separate  or- 

O3) 


94  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ganization.  If  the  modern  wage  earner  evolved  into  the  capitalist,  as  the 
Ijoy  into  the  man,  or  the  caterpillar  into  the  butterfly,  he  might  not  he 
obliged  to  associate  with  his  fellow-craftsmen  in  order  to  improve  his  con- 
ditions. There  is,  however,  a  growing  separation  in  interest  and  feeling 
between  employers  and  workingmen.  "The  business  men  in  the  present 
generation."  says  Professor  Arthur  Twining  Hadley,  President  of  Yale 
University,  "have  in  large  part  risen  from  the  ranks  of  labor  to  their  exist- 
ing position  of  leadership ;  but  whether  the  same  thiilg  can  be  predicted  for 
the  next  generation  is  very  doubtful.  Certain  it  is  that  the  prospect  of 
becoming  capitalists  does  not  act  as  so  powerful  a  motive  on  the  laborers  of 
to-day  as  it  did  on  those  of  a  generation  ago.  The  opportunities  to  save 
are  as  great  or  greater ;  but  the  amount  which  has  to  be  saved  before  a  man 
can  hope  to  become  his  own  employer,  has  increased  enormously.  When 
a  man  who  had  accumulated  a  thousand  dollars  could  set  up  in  business  for 
himself,  the  prospect  of  independence  appealed  to  him  most  powerfully; 
when  he  can  do  nothing  but  lend  it  to  some  richer  man,  the  incentives  and 
ambitions  connected  with  saving  are  far  weaker — too  weak,  in  many  cases, 
to  lead  the  man  to  save  at  all,  except  through  the  medium  of  a  friendly 
society  or  trades-union."  We  thus  have  a  separation  of  the  community  into 
more  and  more  rigidly  defined  groups,  different  in  industrial  condition,  dis- 
tinct in  ideals,  and  oftentimes  antagonistic  in  ambitions  and  sympathies. 

Not  only  is  the  individual  workingman's  chance  of  becoming  an  em- 
ployer rapidly  disappearing,  but  with  every  advance  in  industry,  with  each 
new  development  of  enterprise  upon  a  large  scale,  his  importance  is  dimin- 
ishing and  his  power  to  bargain  individually,  growing  less.  The  industrial 
development  of  the  past  century  and  a  half  has  made  the  employer  grow 
and  the  workman  shrink.  When  the  man  who  received  wages  and  the  man 
who  paid  wages  worked  side  by  side  on  the  same  wooden  bench,  the  present 
inequality  between  the  individual  workman  and  the  employer  did  not  exist. 
The  employer  who  formerly  owned  thousands  of  dollars,  however,  is  now 
the  possessor  of  hundreds  of  thousands  or  millions,  and  the  employer  of  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  95 

future  will  no  longer  be  a  man,  but  a  vast  corporation  with  a  capital  of  hun- 
dreds of  millions,  if  not,  as  in  the  case  of  nn  existing-  corporation,  with  a 
capital  of  over  a  billion  of  dollars. 

Owing-  to  the  present  growing  inequality  between  capitalists  and  indi- 
vidual workingmen,  the  advantage,  the  necessity  even,  of  trade  unionism 
becomes  apparent.  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation  can  better  do  with- 
out the  services  of  an  individual  puddler  or  roller  than  the  puddler  or  roller 
can  do  without  the  wages  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation.  A  track- 
layer or  brakeman  upon  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  is  more  anxious  to  keep 
his  job  than  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  is  desirous  of  retaining  his  services. 
The  very  freedom  of  contract  which  the  workingman  now  possesses  is,  if  he 
is  unorganized,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  a  disadvantage.  It  uas  formerly 
supposed  that  as  soon  as  all  restrictions  upon  the  inalienable  right  of  a  man 
to  work  were  removed,  the  workman  would  become  prosperous,  since  free 
competition  and  the  play  of  supply  and  demand  would  work  out  to  his  advan- 
tage. What  has  actually  occurred,  however,  is  that  the  individual  work- 
man, unprotected  by  a  union,  is  more  and  more  at  the  mercy  of  the  large  em- 
ployer and  more  and  more  defenseless  with  every  advance  made  by  modern 
society. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  upon  the  whole  the  American  workingman  re 
ceives  l>etter  wages,  l>oth  in  money  and  in  what  money  will  buy,  than  the 
workingman  of  any  of  the  nations  of  Hiiro]*1.  Uut,  like  all  men  who  a  in- 
dependent upon  their  earnings,  the  .American  wage  earner  standing  alone 
is  in  a  precarious  condition.  There  are  at  work  hundreds  of  thousands,  if 
not  millions,  of  Americans,  whose  entire  belongings  do  not  amount  in  value 
to  more  than  two  or  three  weeks'  wages,  and  there  are  many  who  draw  their 
present  week's  pay  with  the  intention  of  liquidating  their  last  week's  debt. 
in  all  employments,  and  especially  in  large  eitiis.  work  is  precarious  aii-l 
uncertain;  and  in  hard  times  particularly,  the  fear  <>f  enforced  idleness  act- 
as  a  terrible  weight  uj>on  the  mind  of  the  workiniMiian.  The  majority  of 
workingmen  do  not  hold  their  own  and  do  not  have  a  fixed  income  sufficient 


96  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

to  support  them  in  case  of  loss  of  work.  There  is  no  prospect  of  aid  from 
the  government  or  from  charitable  societies,  in  case  they  become  ill  or  pre- 
maturely aged. 

Under  such  conditions  the  unorganized  workman  in  the  United  States, 
as  elsewhere,  is  frequently  obliged  to  accept  extremely  low  wages,  to  work 
for  excessively  long  hours,  and  to  labor  under  unsanitary  and  dangerous 
conditions.  Of  course,  the  unorganized  workman  may,  in  periods  of  excep- 
tional prosperity,  draw  advantage  from  an  abnormal  demand  for  labor ;  but 
in  ordinary  times,  and  especially  in  periods  of  depression,  he  must  accept 
the  wages  that  are  offered.  The  free  competition  for  labor  frequently  works 
great  hardship.  A  man  with  a  family  at  home  and  without  a  dollar  in  his 
pocket  will  be  willing  to  \vork  for  almost  any  wage,  and  the  men  in  the 
same  trade  who  have  greater  resources  will  be  obliged  to  accept  the  same 
rate  of  remuneration.  The  strength  of  the  chain  is  the  strength  of  its 
weakest  link,  and  the  power  of  resistance  of  unorganized  workmen  is  the 
power  of  the  poorest  and  least  resourceful  of  them.  The  competition  of 
women  and  children,  willing  to  \vork  for  spending  money,  drives  down  still 
further  the  wages  which  unorganized  men  and  women,  solely  dependent 
upon  their  own  work,  will  be  forced  to  accept.  The  pin  money  of  the 
farmer's  wife  fixes  the  amount  of  the  needle  money  of  the  city  seamstress. 
The  unrestricted  competition  for  the  opportunity  to  work  in  the  ready-made 
clothing  afld  other  sweated  trades  before  the  existence  of  the  union  was 
such  as  to  reduce  whole  masses  of  the  population  to  a  level  of  wages,  and 
force  them  to  an  intensity  and  duration  of  work,  inconsistent  with  health, 
morality,  or  the  propagation  of  the  species.  The  competition  for  jobs  in 
unorganized  and  unregulated  trades  brings  forth  a  struggle  wrhich  is  pa- 
thetic and  from  a  moral  point  of  view,  unutterably  brutal  and  anarchic. 
An  eye  witness,  writing  prior  to  the  famous  dock  strike  of  1889,  says: 
"There  is  a  place  at  the  London  Docks  called  the  cage,  a  sort  of  pen  fenced 
off  by  iron  railings.  I  have  seen  three  hundred  half-starved  dockers 
crowded  round  this  cage,  when  perhaps  a  ganger  would  appear  wanting 


n  _ 

I'  't 

2  x 

X  '/ 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  97 

three  hands,  and  the  awful  struggle  of  these  three  hundred  famished 
wretches  fighting  for  that  opportunity  to  get  two  or  three  hours'  work  has 
left  an  impression  upon  me  that  can  never  be  effaced.  Why,  I  have  actually 
seen  them  clambering  over  each  other's  backs  to  reach  the  coveted  ticket. 
I  have  frequently  seen  men  emerge  bleeding  and  breathless,  with  their 
clothes  pretty  well  torn  off  their  backs." 

The  scene  above  described  is  true  not  of  London  alone,  nor  of  dock- 
hands  alone.  During  the  bad  times  of  1893  and  1894,  groups  of  half-starved 
wcrkingmen  were  seen  in  the  large  cities  surrounding  newspaper  offices  at 
daybreak,  waiting  for  the  first  edition  of  the  paper,  with  its  want  "ads.," 
and  then  racing  to  the  place  where  the  job  was  offered  to  be  the  first 
to  take  the  position  at  any  price.  Wherever  unorgani/.cd,  unskilled  work- 
men strive  for  jobs,  they  do  so  under  the  burden  of  this  blind,  merciless, 
remorseless  comj>etition  from  men  who  are  unemployed  or  men  who  are  but 
partially  employed.  This  competition  is  no  less  terrible  because  unseen. 
When  in  bad  times  an  employer  advertises  for  a  clerk  and  receives,  as  is 
often  the  case,  a  hundred  or  more  applications,  the  misery  that  produces  so 
unregulated  and  excessive  a  demand  for  the  position  offered  is  no  less  fear- 
ful because  its  effects  are  not  immediately  visible. 

To  a  very  great  extent  trade  unionism  regulates  this  unrestricted  com- 
petition and  directs  it  into  socially  advantageous  channels.  In  union  there 
is  strength.  Through  trade  unionism  the  wages  of  workmen  cease  to  be 
regulated  by  the  wages  of  the  man  with  the  least  resources  and  the  greatest 
needs,  and  Ixrcomc  the  remuneration  that  the  average  man  in  the  trade  might 

demand.     Trade  unionism  takes  labor  from  the  list  of  perishable  articles  ' 

i 
lhat  must  l>e  sold  on  the  sj>ot  and  immediately,  or  not  at  all,  and  gives  to  the 

workingman  a  reserve  jxjwcr  and  to  his  labor,  a  reserve  price.  Through 
the  trade  union,  the  workingman  bargaining  for  a  position  gets  hi^  second 
wind.  By  emphasizing  the  solidarity  of  labor  the  union  renders  the  c«>m- 
]>ctition  of  workmen  with  each  other  less  keen.  The  instinctive  feeling 
among  workingmcn  against  underbidding  one  another  is  crystallized  by 


98  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

trade  unionism  into  the  commandment,  "Thou  shalt  not  unfairly  take  thy 
neighbor's  job."  The  union  changes  the  individual  bargain  between  the 
man  who  needs  a  job  immediately  and  the  employer  who  may  hire  him  to- 
day, or  a  month  from  now,  or  not  at  all,  into  a  collective  bargain  between  all 
the  workingmen  and  all  the  employers  in  the  trade.  The  union,  further, 
gives  to  the  workingman  the  services  of  men  especially  trained  to  the  work 
of  making  bargains  with  employers,  men  who,  as  officers  of  the  union, 
devote  their  lives  to  the  sole  task  of  getting  the  best  possible  conditions. 
The  union  in  so  doing  acts  upon  the  principle  that  the  advantage  of  the 
workingman  will  not  come  to  him  of  itself,  as  the  rain  comes  to  the  parched 
fields,  but  will  flow  only  from  the  persistent  and  combined  efforts  of  work- 
ingmen. As  General  Francis  A.  Walker  said,  "If  the  wage  laborer  does 
not  pursue  his  interest,  he  loses  his  interest." 

It  is  only  when  we  comprehend  the  influence  which  labor  conditions 
exercise  upon  the  physical,  mental,  and  moral  life  of  the  workman  and  his 
family  that  we  realize  the  vital  necessity  of  trade  unionism.  The  wage 
contract  is  not  merely  a  contract  to  deliver  certain  labor  for  a  certain  sum 
of  money,  but  is  an  arrangement  regulating  a  thousand  and  one  details  of 
life  and  vitally  affecting  every  phase  of  the  existence  of  the  workman.  The 
question  of  organized  labor  versus  unorganized  labor  is  the  question  of  the 
right  of  workmen  to  determine  some  of  the  conditions  under  which  they 
shall  work  and  live,  instead  of  leaving  the  whole  matter  to  the  greed  or 
necessities  of  an  employer  or  to  the  whim,  cruelty,  or  sordidness  of  a  tyran- 
nical foreman. 

Labor,  it  is  said,  is  a  commodity  to  be  bought  and  sold,  and  it  is  as  idle 
to  attempt  to  regulate  the  price  of  this,  or  of  any  other  commodity,  as  to 
seek  to  stop  the  flow  of  the  tides.  Labor,  however,  is  a  commodity  of  a 
peculiar  sort.  It  is  a  part  of  the  very  being  of  the  man  who  sells  it.  The 
commodity  sold  is  a  human  creature,  whose  welfare  in  the  eyes  of  the  law 
should  be  of  more  importance  than  any  mere  accumulation  of  wealth  on 
the  part  of  the  community.  It  is  a  commodity,  further,  which  it  is  difficult 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  99 

to  sell  to  advantage.  The  \vorkingman  cannot  know  the  best  market  for 
this  ware,  his  labor,  nor  can  he  sell  it  at  any  place,  except  where  he  himself 
is.  He  cannot  send  a  sample  of  it,  nor  can  he,  without  organized  effort, 
regulate  the  supply.  As  long  as  he  lives  and  is  without  resources,  he  must 
work,  and  for  many  years  in  succession  he  may  be  forced  to  sell  his  prod- 
uct at  a  price  considerably  less  than  the  ct>st  to  society  of  reproducing  it. 
When  the  demand  for  cotton  or  wheat  decreases,  this  very  fact  lessens  the 
supply,  since  it  becomes  less  profitable  to  raise  it ;  but  when  the  demand  for 
labor  declines,  this  very  fact  creates  an  added  supply,  since  women  and 
children  and  other  persons  ordinarily  unemployed  are  now  forced  on  the 
market,  and  men  will  be  willing  to  work  longer  hours,  because  there  is  less 
work  to  do.  The  commodity  labor  is  one  which  can  be  supplied  by  women 
rind  children,  and  if  there  is  no  limit  set  cither  by  organization  or  by  the 
force  of  law  to  its  use  or  exploitation,  it  can  very  well  result  in  the  whole- 
sale destruction  of  the  commodity  itself,  and  in  the  j>ermancnt  deterioration 
of  the  workmen  of  the  community. 

Without  organization  and  without  the  interference  of  the  law.  there- 
fore, the  individual  workman  is  practically  at  the  mercy  of  the  employer. 
It  does  not  follow  that  the  employer  will  always  abuse  this  privilege,  or  that 
he  will  seek  to  secure  labor  at  less  than  a  reasonable  and  humane  remunera- 
tion. At  the  same  time  the  force  of  competition  will  in  many  cases  compel 
the  unprotected  and  unorganized  workman,  rather  than  starve,  to  accept  a 
wage  insufficient  to  maintain  a  decent  standard  of  living  or  to  keep  him  in 
a  state  of  industrial  efficiency.  The  cx]>erieiice  of  the  sweated  trades  illus- 
trates this  tendency.  In  the  manufacture  of  ready-made  clothing  in  New 
York  City.  Philadelphia,  Boston,  and  Chicago,  one  class  of  workmen  has 
been  displaced  by  another  willing  to  take  lower  wages,  and  ihis  latter  by 
another,  and  so  on,  until  the  most  meagre  wages  compatible  with  mere  exist- 
ence have  l>een  paid.  The  employment  of  women  and  children  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  paper  boxes,  of  matches,  confectionery,  artificial  flowers,  brushes, 
and  numl)crless  small  articles,  also  illustrates  this  tcndcncv.  Where  labor 


100  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

is  unorganized  and  competition  exists,  the  effect  is  not  only  felt  in  decreased 
wages,  but  also  in  longer  hours,  in  unsanitary  conditions,  in  the  excessive 
employment  of  women  and  little  children,  and  in  every  possible  abuse  of 
the  workingman. 

In  many  ways  other  than  the  amount  of  wages  and  the  hours  of  labor, 
does  the  employer  exert  a  strong  influence  upon  the  welfare  of  the  working- 
man.  Wherever  there  has  been  unorganized  or  disorganized  labor,  there 
have  been  cases  of  unfair  advantage  taken  of  employees  by  means  of  de- 
layed payments,  compulsory  credit,  and  truck  stores.  If  the  employer 
refuses  to  pay  frequently,  but  pays  his  workmen  at  long  and  irregular  inter- 
vals, it  is  practically  certain  that  a  large  number  of  them  will  be  obliged  to 
receive  goods  on  credit,  and,  as  a  consequence,  will  fall  prey  to  the  extrava- 
gance which  the  presence  of  credit  and  the  absence  of  cash  invariably  breed. 
Indebtedness  to  the  employer  means  dependence  upon  him.  It  also  means 
opportunity  to  reduce  real  wages  by  increasing  prices  at  the  company  store. 
The  unwarranted  and  unjust  profit  obtained  from  the  truck  stores  has 
firmly  imbedded  the  system  in  the  arrangements  of  many  employers. 
These  stores  have  also  enabled  the  employers  to  charge  exorbitant  prices 
and  to  cheat  the  workingmen  in  the  matter  of  both  quality  and  quantity  of 
the  goods  offered.  In  many  cases  the  truck  store  arose,  in  the  first  instance, 
from  the  actual  needs  and  necessities  of  the  workingman ;  but  where  a  bene- 
fit becomes  a  curse,  it  should  be  abolished,  whatever  its  original  advantage. 
It  is  one  of  the  principal  achievements  of  trade  unionism  that  it  has,  to  so 
large  an  extent,  inaugurated  the  system  of  weekly  or  semi-monthly  pay- 
ments in  cash,  and  that  in  large  measure  it  has  done  away  with  the  system 
of  paying  in  scrip  or  in  commodities  and  has  in  many  cases  abolished  the 
truck  store. 

The  vital  importance  of  trade  unionism  cannot  be  evident  unless  the 
full  and  true  meaning  of  the  labor  contract  is  understood.  The  labor  con- 
tract with  the  individual,  unorganized  workman  is  a  loose  verbal  arrange- 
ment, stating  nothing  definitely  with  regard  to  the  protection  of  the  work- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  IOI 

»nan  against  disease,  death,  or  accident.  The  employer  practically  dictates 
to  the  unorganized  workman  where  he  shall  live,  where  he  is  to  work,  the 
condition  under  which  the  work  shall  be  done,  the  amount  of  heat  or  damp- 
ness or  ventilation,  and  whether  or  not  there  shall  be  guards  upon  the  ma- 
chinery to  protect  his  life.  It  is  not  specifically  stipulated  in  the  contract 
with  a  brakeman  or  other  trainman  that  each  year  one  out  of  every  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-seven  shall  be  killed,  and  one  out  of  every  eleven  shall  be 
maimed  or  injured;  but  the  railroad  company  assumes  the  right  to  set  the 
conditions  which  shall  make  this  proportion  of  deaths  and  injuries  inevit- 
able. The  employer  also  retains  the  right  to  choose  unreservedly  the  com- 
jKinions  and  fellow-servants  of  the  unorganized  workman  ;  and  thus,  the 
man  who  may  put  the  new  employee's  life  into  jeopardy  is  entirely  of  the 
employer's  choosing.  The  employer  also  influences  by  his  regulations  the 
hours  of  labor,  the  right  of  the  employee  to  absent  himself  in  case  of  sick- 
r.ess,  the  age  and  the  task  at  which  children  shall  be  employed,  and  thus  the 
health,  not  only  of  the  present,  but  of  future  generations.  In  the  same  way, 
if  unrestrained  by  organized  labor  or  by  the  authority  of  the  state,  the  em- 
ployer can  seriously  impair  the  moral  health  of  his  workpeople,  and  that 
without  violating  the  labor  contract.  The  ordinary  contract  with  the  indi- 
vidual, unorganized  workman  states  nothing  with  regard  to  the  manner  in 
which  men  and  women  shall  work  together  in  the  factories,  during  the  day 
or  at  night,  the  sanitary  conditions,  the  presence  or  absence  of  separate  toilet 
rooms,  or  any  other  provisions  for  the  maintenance  of  the  moral  conditions 
i  >f  the  workwoman.  One  of  the  advantages  of  tr.ide  unionism  has  been  that 
it  has  aided  conscientious  employers  and  comj>elled  negligent  employers  to 
maintain  in  their  establishments  a  certain  minimum  of  decency  in  these 
matters. 

The  labor  contract,  as  it  exists  to-day,  for  the  great  majority  of  unor- 
ganized workilignietl  is  merely  a  verbal  agreement  1>etween  the  individual 
employee  and  the  foreman,  and  each  side  reserves  the  right  to  i|iiit  at  prac- 
tically a  moment's  notice.  There,  may  be  some  advantages  in  tins  system, 


102  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

but  one  of  the  many  disadvantages  is  the  insecurity  which  it  brings  intp 
the  life  of  the  person  so  employed.  The  unorganized  workman  is  subject 
to  the  private  spite  and  malice  of  his  employer  or  foreman,  although  this  is 
probably  less  true  than  was  formerly  the  case.  The  position  and  wages  of 
the  unorganized  workingman  are  entirely  subject  to  fluctuations  in  the  in- 
dustry, and  he  is  liable  to  be  thrown  out  of  employment  with  the  first  appear- 
ance of  a  shrinkage.  The  whole  tendency  of  employment  under  the  capi- 
talistic regime  has  been,  at  least  until  recently,  to  make  the  position  of  the 
workingman  more  and  more  insecure.  The  crises  and  commercial  depres- 
sions which  have  swept  over  this  country  during  almost  every  decade,  have 
resulted  in  intense  suffering  on  the  part  of  workingmen,  a  suffering  accentu- 
ated by  the  competition  of  great  masses  of  immigrants  who  come  here  dur- 
ing more  prosperous  times.  Even  apart  from  such  crises,  the  workingman 
is  subject  to  the  loss  of  his  job  through  sickness,  accident,  or  other  contin- 
gencies beyond  his  control;  and  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  he  can  secure 
no  compensation  from  the  employer  for  injury  inflicted  by  an  accident, 
no  matter  how  free  the  workman  himself  is  from  carelessness  or  contribu- 
tory negligence.  The  employee  is  also  subject  to  the  loss  of  his  position 
through  advancing  age,  and  in  the  case  of  the  majority  of  unorganized 
workmen,  no  provision  is  made  for  him  in  this  event. 

To  a  considerable  extent  the  unions  steady  and  modify  these  influences 
and  thus  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  workmen  at  such  times.  By  the 
payment  of  out-of-work  benefits,  which  is  common  in  England  and  becom- 
ing more  prevalent  in  the  United  States,  they  lessen  the  hardship  of  a  tem- 
porary unemployment,  and  by  death  and  funeral  benefits,  they  protect  the 
widow  and  the  orphans  upon  the  demise  of  the  wage  earner  from  absolute 
destitution.  The  payment  of  old-age  benefits,  which  is  also  more  common 
among  English  than  American  trade  unions,  relieves  the  workingman  of  a 
portion  of  the  anxiety  with  which  he  looks  forward  to  approaching  dis- 
ability through  age. 

Trade  unionism  thus  gives  to  workingmen  increased  power  to  modify 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  103 

to  their  advantage  the  terms  of  the  labor  contract.  This  is  frequently 
styled  by  unreasonable  employers  as  "interfering  with  my  business,"  but 
the  workman  might  with  justice  retort,  "the  employer  is  interfering 
with  my  life  and  happiness."  The  employer  is  now  willing  to  concede, 
though  he  was  not  always  willing  to  do  so,  that  the  workman  has  the  right 
to  determine  what  wages  he  will  accept  and  how  many  hours  he  will  work. 
\Yhat  it  has  taken  the  employer  much  longer  to  learn,  and  what  he  has  not 
even  yet  mastered,  is  the  fact  that  the  organized  workman  has  just  as  much 
right  to  make  suggestions  and  stipulations  with  regard  to  other  conditions 
of  employment.  It  takes  two  to  make  a  contract,  as  it  takes  two  to  make 
a  quarrel,  and  both  parlies  to  an  agreement  should  have  equal  rights  in  de- 
termining how,  when,  with  whom,  at  what  time,  and  under  what  conditions 
work  shall  be  carried  on.  Through  the  instrumentality  of  the  trade  union 
this  right  has  been  gradually,  though  as  yet  imperfectly,  secured  for  the 
wage  earner. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
THE   BENEFIT  FEATURES  OF  TRADE  UNIONS 

Direct  Benefit  of  Insurance.  The  Benefit  Features  of  American  Trade  Unions. 
British  vs.  American  Trade  Benefits.  Death  and  Funeral  Benefits.  Unions  and  In- 
surance Companies.  The  Unions  and  the  Actuaries.  Insurance  and  Union  Discipline. 
Trade  Unions  and  Assessment  Insurance  Companies.  Death  Benefits  and  Permanent 
Membership.  Insurance  and  Union  Control.  Local  Sick  Benefits.  Other  Benefits. 
The  Finances  of  British  and  American  Trade  Unions. 

THE  most  direct,  although  not  the  greatest,  benefit  derived  by  workmen 
from  their  unions  is  insurance  against  death,  accident,  sickness,  and  in 
some  cases  loss  of  tools  or  failure  to  secure  work.  From  their  inception 
trade  unions  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  have  adopted  the  policy  of"  insuring 
their  members,  and,  in  fact,  many  of  the  earlier  unions  were  formed  and 
conducted  under  the  guise  of  purely  friendly  societies.  This  system  of 
trade  union  insurance  has  reached  a  high  state  of  development  in  England. 
American  unions,  owing  to  their  comparative  youth,  have  not  yet  evolved 
as  complete  a  system,  although  they  are  making  steady  progress  in  that  di- 
rection. 

An  entirely  false  conception  of  the  whole  subject  of  trade  union  insur- 
ance is  inevitable,  unless  one  bears  in  mind  that  insurance  is  always  subordi- 
nate to  the  trade  policy  of  the  unions.  Trade  unions  are  interested  in  pro- 
tecting their  members  and  paying  them  benefits  in  case  of  death,  sickness,  or 
disability,  but  they  are  even  more  vitally  interested  in  raising  wages  and 
improving  conditions  of  employment.  Out-of-work  benefits,  for  instance, 
are  conceived  entirely  in  this  sense.  The  workman  may  derive  an  advan- 
tage from  the  support  of  his  family  when  he  is  out  of  work;  yet  the  primary 
object  of  the  union  is  not  to  bestow  charity  or  assistance  upon  the  unem- 
ployed man,  but.  to  protect  the  wage  of  the  men  actually  at  work.  Thus, 
if  wages  in  an  occupation  are  twelve  dollars  a  week,  the  union  prefers  that 

(104) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  IO5 

an  unemployed  man  receive  from  union  funds  an  out-of-work  benefit  of  four 
or  five  dollars  a  week  rather  than  accept  employment  at  ten  dollars  a  week, 
or  at  any  other  rate  below  the  union  scale. 

Even  where  l^enefits  are  not  directly  connected  with  loss  of  work,  the 
insurance  feature  is  suljordinated  to  the  trade  policy  of  the  organization. 
This  constitutes  one  of  the  drawbacks  and  also  one  of  the  advantages  of  the 
system.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  workingman  there  appears  at  first 
sight  a  certain  disadvantage  in  being  insured  by  the  union,  since  he  has  no 
absolute  guarantee  of  receiving  the  insurance  for  which  he  has  paid.  The 
funds  devoted  to  life  insurance  and  the  money  which  may  have  been  con- 
tributed for  the  purpose  of  insuring  against  sickness  or  old  age,  while  as  a 
rule  kept  separate  and  distinct  from  the  general  funds  of  the  organization, 
may  be  used  in  a  great  strike  or  expended  in  out-of-work  benefits  during  a 
prolonged  commercial  depression.  Moreover,  a  memlxjr  of  the  union,  after 
paying  his  dues  for  a  numlxT  of  years,  may  have  his  assessment  increased, or. 
by  reason  of  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  organization  or  for  other 
misconduct,  may  be  expelled  from  the  union,  and  his  rights  to  insurance 
benefits  may  thus  be  forfeited. 

In  point  of  actual  practice  these  theoretical  disadvantages  have  not  m:i 
teriali/ed,  and  trade  unions  have  been  able  to  meet  the  obligations  which 
they  have  incurred  toward  their  members.  From  the  point  of  view  of  t'u- 
trade  union,  however,  this  system  of  insurance  is  of  great  InMiefit.  P.y  mean; 
of  it  a  large  numlier  of  the  best  workmen  arc  attracted  to  the  organization. 
and  the  enthusiasm  of  the  memlxjrs  is  maintained  by  the  hope  of  securing 
relief  in  times  </f  sickness  or  accident  or  provision  for  their  families  in  ras  v 
of  death.  The  accumulation  of  a  large  reserve  fund  derived  from  insur- 
ance also  strengthens  the  union  in  the  event  of  a  strike  or  of  negotiations 
which  mav  lead  to  a  strike,  while  the  hope  of  securing  insurance  l>cnelit ; 
tends  to  render  the  meinhtrs  of  the  union  more  conservative  and  less  willing 
to  jeopanh/e  its  funds  in  useless  or  unwarranted  labor  conllirts.  The  p«>s 
session  of  large  funds  for  the  payment  of  l>enefits  further  aids  the  union 
in  establishing  and  maintaining  discipline.  Kxpulsion  horn  a  trade  union 


T06  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

is  a  much  more  serious  punishment  if  it  involves  the  loss  of  future  in- 
surance benefits  than  if  no  such  losses  are  entailed.  The  trade  union  also 
possesses  an  advantage  over  the  ordinary  assessment  insurance  company  in 
being  able,  by  means  of  assessments  levied  upon  members  or  otherwise,  to 
adjust  the  income  of  the  union  to  the  demands  put  upon  it  by  its  insurance 
policy.  In  the  case  of  an  ordinary  assessment  insurance  company,  in  which 
membership  is  voluntary,  the  increasing  demand  made  upon  the  organiza- 
tion as  men  grow7  older  and  as  the  death  rate  increases,  causes  the  assess- 
ments to  become  so  high  that  the  younger  members  gradually  drop 
out,  while  other  young  men  refuse  to  join,  with  the  result  that  the 
average  age  of  the  members  becomes  constantly  higher.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  the  case  of  the  trade  union,  \vhere  participation  in  insurance  is  obligatory 
upon  all  members,  there  is  no  possibility  for  the  young  men  to  remain  out, 
and  the  steady  influx  of  new  blood  causes  the  average  age  of  the  members 
to  remain  constant.  The  actuaries  and  leading  insurance  experts  of  Eng- 
land predicted  in  1867  that  the  trade  union  insurance  companies  would  all 
become  bankrupt,  but  this  prediction,  like  many  others  regarding  trade 
unionism,  lias  been  proved  untrue  by  the  subsequent  experience  of  the  or- 
ganizations. 

The  development  of  trade  union  insurance  by  British  organizations  has 
beeen  gradual  but  constant.  During  the  ten  years  preceding  1901  the  one 
hundred  principal  trade  unions  of  Great  Britain  spent  almost  $45,ooo,ooo1 
in  unemployed,  sick,  superannuated,  funeral,  and  other  benefits.  Of  this 
sum  $15,900,000  were  spent  in  payments  to  unemployed;  $13,100,000  for 
cases  of  sickness  and  accident ;  $7,300,000  for  superannuation,  and  $8,300,- 
ooo  upon  funeral  and  other  benefits.  The  unemployed  benefit  is  paid  by  a 
great  majority  of  the  unions  and  amounted,  in  the  year  1902  to  $2,230,000. 
Expenditures  for  this  purpose  fluctuate  with  the  state  of  the  trade,  increasing 
in  seasons  of  depression  and  decreasing  in  periods  of  industrial  activity. 
In  England  they  reached  the  highest  point  in  1893  and  fell  to  the  lowest 

1  In  making  this  computation  the  pound  sterling  is  held  to  be  worth  $4.85. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  107 

point  in  1899,  since  which  time  they  have  l>eeen  steadily  rising.  The  ex- 
penditure for  sick  and  accident  insurance,  paid  usually  as  a  weekly  benefit 
in  cases  of  sickness  or  allowed  in  lump  sums  in  cases  of  disabling  accident, 
or  in  other  instances  made  as  grants  to  hospitals,  have  steadily  increased 
from  $1,020,000  in  1892  to  $1,670,000  in  1901,  69  out  of  100  unions  pay- 
ing these  benefits  in  1892  and  77  unions  out  of  100  in  1901.  The  super- 
annuation benefit  consists  of  payments  ranging  from  50  cents  to  $3.00  per 
week,  but  usually  averaging  from  $1.25  to  $2.50  per  week.  It  is  given  to 
men  no  longer  able  to  work  at  their  trades,  or,  at  all  events,  to  earn  full 
wages,  but  is  paid  by  only  38  of  the  100  principal  unions.  The  sum 
so  expended,  however,  is  largely  increasing.  In  1892,  less  than  $500,000 
was  spent  in  this  way,  whereas  in  the  year  1901  the  sum  so  expended  had 
increased  to  almost  $1,000,000.  Funeral  benefits  are  the  most  widely  dif- 
fused of  all  forms  of  trade  union  insurance  in  Great  Britain,  89  out  of  the 
100  principal  unions,  comprising  89  per  cent,  of  the  meml>ership,  paying 
benefits  of  this  character.  This  benefit  is  also  gradually  increasing,  amount- 
ing to  $330.000  in  1892  and  to  $480,000  in  1901. 

The  policy  of  paying  extensive  benefits  and  of  charging  high  dues  has 
resulted  in  a  rapid  increase  in  the  wealth  and  the  membership  r>f  British 
trade  unions.  During  tiie  nine  years  from  1892  to  1901  the  funds  in  the 
hands  of  the  one  hundred  principal  British  unions  increased  from  $7,785,- 
ooo  to  $20.185,000.  Each  year,  therefore,  enables  the  lalx)r  organizations 
of  England  to  extend  the  scope  and  amount  of  their  insurance  and  to  guar- 
antee the  workingman  greater  immunity  from  life's  vicissitudes. 

The  system  of  insurance,  as  already  indicated,  is  not  as  fully  or  as  per- 
fectly developed  in  the  t'nited  States  as  in  England.  This  is  accounted  for 
not  only  by  the  fact  that  unions  in  the  t'nited  States  are  younger  !>ut  also 
by  the  fact  that  the  dues  in  this  country  are  much  lower  in  proportion  to  the 
wages  received.  The  average  meml>er  of  a  British  trade  union  pays  alxMit 
$8.50  per  year,  or  about  seventy  cents  j)er  month,  which  is  considerably  in 
excess  of  the  average  dues  of  trade  unionists  in  the  I'nited  States.  The 
American  trade  unions  have  adopted,  however,  at  least  in  principle,  the 


108  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

insurance  features  of  British  trade  unions.  The  Cigar  Makers  and  the 
German-American  Typographia  are  perhaps  the  only  American  unions  pay- 
ing out-of-work  benefits  from  the  funds  in  their  national  treasuries,  although 
in  the  case  of  victimized  members  a  number  of  trade  unions  provide  relief. 
The  usual  form  of  insurance  on  the  part  of  American  trade  unions  is  the 
death  or  funeral  benefit.  This  benefit  is  common  because  death  itself  is 
inevitable  and  brings  a  burden  to  the  family  of  the  deceased,  and  because  a 
death  or  funeral  fund  can  be  administered  much  more  easily  and  with  less 
risk  of  fraud  than  a  sick  or  accident  fund.  Some  of  the  railroad  brother- 
hoods pay  large  insurance  in  case  of  death  and  charge  accordingly ;  the  death 
benefit  of  the  Locomotive  Engineers  ranging  from  $750  to  $4,500;  of  the 
Conductors  from  $1,000  to  $5,000;  of  the  Firemen  from  $500  to  $1,500; 
of  the  Trainmen  from  $400  to  $500,  and  of  the  Telegraphers  from  $300  to 
$1,000.  These  organizations  charge  a  uniform  rate  of  assessment,  irre- 
spective of  the  age  of  the  members,  although  they  permit  the  younger  men 
to  insure  more  heavily  than  the  older.  The  only  trade  union  which  estab- 
lishes different  rates  of  assessment  for  men  of  different  ages  is  the  National 
Association  of  Letter  Carriers. 

The  majority  of  American  trade  unions  pay  but  a  small  death  or  fu- 
neral benefit.  The  Glass  Bottle  Blowers  and  the  Cigar  Makers  pay  $500  as 
a  maximum,  the  Lithographers  from  $50  to  $500,  while  a  number  of  unions 
pay  $200  or  less,  and  some  pay  only  from  $50  to  $100.  A  number  of  unions 
also  pay  small  amounts  on  the  death  of  a  member's  wife. 

About  a  dozen  national  organizations  pay  sick  insurance  and  these  bene- 
fits are  also  given  by  a  considerable  number  of  local. unions  whose  national 
organizations  have  no  insurance  features.  The  sick  benefit  usually  amounts 
to  $4.00  or  $5.00  per  week,  and  the  length  of  time  during  which  a  member 
may  receive  it  is  limited.  Great  care  is  also  taken  that  the  demand  upon 
the  union  may  not  be  fraudulent,  a  physician's  certificate  being  required 
before  an  applicant  can  secure  his  benefit,  and  local  committees  being  ap- 
pointed to  visit  the  sick  in  order  to  prevent  deception. 

The  American  trade  union  which  has  developed  the  most  extended  in- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  ICQ 

surance  features  is  the  Cigar  Makers'  International  Union.  From  1879  to 
ir.oo  it  expended  $838,000  for  strike  benefits;  $1,453,000  for  sick  bene- 
fits; $794,000  for  death  benefits;  $917,000  for  out-of-work  benefits,  and 
^735  >°°o  *or  loans  to  members  while  traveling  (90  per  cent,  of  these  loans 
having  been  repaid)  ;  the  total  benefits  given  and  loaned  amounting  to 


Trade  unions  in  the  United  States  are  largely  extending  the  scope  of 
their  insurance  and  will,  in  the  course  of  time,  become  much  stronger  by 
this  means.  Several  of  the  unions  have  already  adopted  the  superannuation 
benefit  for  men  incapacitated  by  old  age  and  long  service,  although  the  sys- 
tem has  not  yet  had  time  to  develop.  However,  in  the  future  trade 
unions  will  continue  to  widen  the  scope  of  their  activity  in  this  direction. 
protecting  the  workingmen  from  the  effects  of  sickness,  accident,  loss  of 
activity,  incapacitation,  and  old  age,  and  will  also  provide  in  case  of  death. 
for  the  payment  of  funeral  benefits.  This  policy  will  lead  to  an  increased 
popularity  of  trade  unions  and  will  result  in  a  growth  in  membership,  al- 
though. as  is  absolutely  necessary,  the  dues  of  the  organizations  will  be 
raised  in  consequence.  Founders  of  such  insurance,  if  wise,  will  avoid  the 
error  of  promising  inordinately  large  benefits  in  return  for  small  assess- 
ments. With  the  avoidance  of  this  error  and  with  the  increase  and  exten- 
sion of  the  insurance  features,  the  strength  of  the  union,  its  conservatism 
and  its  capacity  for  maintaining  fair  conditions  of  work  will  immeasurably 
increase.  Hut  trade  unions  which  now  have  l>encfit  features  and  those 
which  may.  in  the  future,  adopt  them,  should  exercise  great  care  in  keeping 
the  ir.surar.ce  features  incidental  to  the  trade  ix:>licy  and  to  the  primary  ob- 
jects of  the  unions,  which  are  and  must  always  be  to  raise  wages,  lessen 
hours,  rind  impro\e  the  general  conditions  of  employment. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  AMERICAN  STANDARD  OF  WAGES 

Trade  Unions  have  Maintained  and  Elevated  the  American  Standard  of  Living. 
Increased  Wages,  especially  in  Organized  Trades.  Unionism  Necessary  for  Higher 
Wages.  The  American  Standard  of  Living.  1803  and  1003.  Food,  Clothing,  Shelter, 
Instruction,  and  Amusements  of  the  American  Workingman.  $600  a  year  for  the 
Unskilled.  Will  it  Pay?  The  Economy  of  High  Wages.  Increases  not  Taken  from 
Capital.  High  Wages,  National  Prosperity,  and  the  Welfare  of  the  Middle  Class.  The 
Upward  Tendency  of  Wages. 

ONE  of  the  greatest  benefits  conferred  upon  wage  earners  by  trade 
unionism  has  been  the  elevation  and  maintenance  of  the  standard  of 
living.  In  the  United  Slates,  as  in  England,  organizations  of  labor  have 
constantly  rallied  about  this  standard  and  numberless  strikes  have  occurred 
in  its  defense.  The  history  of  American  trade  unions  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury has  been  the  story  of  a  gradual  increase  in  the  wages  of  American 
workingmen. 

Trade  unions  have  swelled  the  pay  envelope  of  the  workman,  both  by 
enforcing  increases  and  by  preventing  reductions  in  his  remuneration. 
During  the  last  twenty  years,  thousands  of  strikes  have  resulted  in  the  grant- 
ing of  higher  wages,  and  these  victories  have  been  supplemented  by  the  con- 
cession of  semi-monthly  and  weekly  payments  in  cash  and  by  the  abolition 
of  truck  stores  and  credit  payment.  Scores  of  other  strikes,  or  threatened 
strikes,  have  prevented  reductions  in  wages,  and  many  advantages  have  been 
gained  through  conference  and  negotiation.  These  advances,  it  must  be 
admitted,  have  not  been  due  wholly  to  trade  unionism.  The  greater  skill 
and  effectiveness  of  workmen,  the  invention  of  machinery,  the  improvement 
and  increased  productiveness  of  manufacturing  have  all  contributed  to  this 
result.  But  without  the  active  intervention  of  trade  unions,  the  increase 

(1 10) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  III 

in  wages  which  has  marked  the  progress  of  American  industry  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  would  not  have  taken  place. 

It  is  not  possible  in  the  course  of  this  chapter  to  give  even  the  barest 
outline  of  the  manner  in  which,  and  the  extent  to  which,  trade  unions  have 
increased  wages.  This  tendency  is  so  apparent  that  it  hardly  requires  ex- 
tended proof.  Xo  one  can  pick  up  a  newspaper  without  reading  accounts 
of  increases  of  wages  obtained  in  the  organized  trades.  In  many  cases 
workingmen,  who  had  hitherto  been  unorganized  and  had  no  opportunity  to 
compel  increases,  found  their  wages  suddenly  raised  as  soon  as  they  had 
perfected  an  organization  in  their  defense.  In  the  various  building  trades, 
in  transportation,  in  mining,  in  the  several  sections  of  our  highly  developed 
manufacturing  industries,  wages  have  been  largely  raised  through  the 
activity  of  trade  unions.  Many  of  these  increases  have  come  without 
strikes,  and  some  have  been  granted  even  in  advance  of  a  specific  demand 
ujjon  the  part  of  the  trade  unions.  The  increases  in  wages  obtained  in  one 
industry,  through  the  efforts  of  trade  unions,  have  rendered  it  less  difficult 
f«>r  other  organizations  to  obtain  like  concessions. 

"An  overwhelming  preponderance  of  testimony  before  the  Industrial 
Commission,"  says  that  body  in  its  rej>ort  dated  igoj,  "indicates  that  the 
organization  of  labor  has  resulted  in  a  marked  improvement  of  the  economic 
condition  of  the  workers."  Many  specific  instances  were  cited  b\  witnesses 
before  the  Commission.  These  advances  in  wages  obtained  by  trade  unions 
are,  of  course,  acknowledged  by  employers  as  by  all  well-informed  and  rea- 
sonable ]>eople  in  the  United  States.  There  are,  however,  some  theorists  who 
claim  that  this  increase  in  wages  is  merely  apparent  and  of  no  real  benefit 
to  the  workman,  since  if  all  wages  rise,  all  prices  must  rise  in  propor- 
tion, and  the  workingman  who  receives  an  advance  in  his  wages  must  pay 
it  all  out  Ixrcausc  of  the  consequent  increased  cost  of  the  necessities  of  life. 
It  is  thus  urged  that  a  general  increase  in  wages  is  nothing  but  a  wearisome 
march  around  a  circle,  ceaseless  and  leading  to  nowhere.  I  here  are  several 
reasons,  however,  why  this  objection  is  not  valid.  In  the  first  place,  wages 
do  not  always  increase  the  cost  of  production,  since  the  workingman  be- 


112  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

comes  more  efficient  when  he  is  better  paid,  better  fed,  better  clothed,  and 
better  housed.  In  many  industries  prices  have  nothing  at  all  to  do  with 
wages,  but  are  arbitrarily  fixed  at  a  monopoly  figure  and  remain  the  same 
whether  wages  are  high  or  low.  Moreover,  when  wages  actually  raise 
prices,  the  resulting  increase  is  never  in  proportion  to  the  rise  in  wages, 
since  the  cost  of  many  of  the  materials,  the  ground  rent,  the  interest  on  cap- 
ital, taxes,  the  cost  of  supervision,  and  the  profits  of  employers  are  not  nec- 
essarily affected  by  an  increase  in  wages.  Finally,  workingmen  do  not  con- 
sume all,  cr  even  nearly  all,  of  the  articles  which  they  produce;  and  an  in- 
crease in  the  wages  of  diamond  cutters,  of  makers  of  grand  pianos,  of 
weavers  of  fine  carpets,  as  well  as  of  men  engaged  in  performing  personal 
services  for  the  rich,  does  not  in  any  way  affect  the  purchasing  power  of 
the  money  in  the  ordinary  workingman's  envelope.  If  this  argument  were 
true,  and  an  increase  in  wages  all  around  did  not  benefit  the  workman,  then 
a  decrease  would  not  injure  him,  and  the  workingman  would  be  as  well  off 
if  he  did  not  receive  wages  or  remuneration  at  all. 

It  is  claimed  by  some  that  labor  organizations  do  not  raise  or  even  main- 
tain wages,  but  that  the  rate  of  remuneration  is  fixed  entirely  by  the  law  of 
supply  and  demand.  This  law,  however,  does  not  work  automatically. 
Without  trade  unionism,  the  workingman  does  not  derive  full  advantage 
from  an  increased  demand  for  labor,  and  he  suffers  a  disproportionate 
injury  with  each  lessening  in  the  demand  for,  or  each  increase  in  the  supply 
of,  labor.  Those  who  assert  that  trade  unions  have  no  influence  upon  wages, 
appear  to  assume  that  in  point  of  intelligence,  knowledge  of  the  market,  and 
power  of  resistance,  the  workingman  and  the  employer  are  upon  an  equality. 
But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  employer  knows  the  state  of  the  market  both 
for  his  goods  and  for  the  labor  which  he  wishes  to  purchase,  and  he,  or  at 
least  his  foreman,  has  probably  made  a  practical  study  of  the  art  of  bargain- 
ing for  labor,  whereas  the  unorganized  workman,  unaccustomed  to  haggling 
or  bargaining,  is  consequently  at  a  disadvantage.  The  result  is  that  the 
competition  of  unorganized  workmen  for  a  job  tends  to  reduce  wages  to  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  113 

1 ) west  point.  Even  if  the  employer  is  not  disposed  to  take  advantage  of  his 
workman,  he  is  frequently  impelled  to  do  so  by  the  force  of  competition. 
Back  of  him  stand  the  jobber,  the  wholesaler,  the  retailer,  and,  finally,  the 
great,  careless,  bargain-hunting,  indiscriminate  body  of  consumers,  who  are 
constantly  pressing  upon  him  and  forcing  him  to  cut  his  cost  price,  and,  con- 
sequently, the  wages  of  his  labor.  There  is  competition  and  cutting  of 
profits  all  along  the  line,  until  the  point  is  reached  where  the  burden  finally 
settles  its  crushing  weight  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  individual  workman  or 
workwoman. 

Formerly  it  was  believed  that  the  tendency  to  lower  wages  would  work 
its  own  remedy  automatically,  since  if  wages  fell  below  a  certain  point,  the 
workmen  would  stop  marrying  and  the  birth  rate  would  decrease,  with  the 
result  that  eventually  the  number  of  workmen  would  diminish  and  wages 
would  again  rise.  \Ye  now  know  this  theory  to  be  false,  as  conditions  in 
the  low  paid  industries  have  demonstrated  that,  up  to  a  certain  point,  the 
nmnlxM-  of  children  actually  increases  with  growing  poverty.  The  doc- 
trine that  wages  will  l>c  maintained  in  one  generation  by  the  fact  of  a 
smaller  numl>cr  of  workers  in  the  next,  is  alxjut  as  convincing  as  the  theory 
that  it  does  not  pain  a  lobster  to  be  boiled  alive,  since  he  has  Ixx'ome  used  to 
this  process  in  the  course  of  many  generations. 

As  lieforc  stated,  the  history  of  the  past  century  lias  been  the  story  of 
a  gradual  increase  in  the  wages  of  the  working  classes.  When,  in  iS(x>. 
Thomas  Jefferson  was  elected  president,  the  workingmen  of  the  North  were 
in  a  condition  but  little  suj>crior  to  that  of  colonial  days,  a  condition  i;i  which 
they  worked  long  hours,  at  hard  toil,  for  small  pay.  From  this  state  of 
affairs  the  invention  of  machinery  and  the  improvement  of  production  on 
a  large  scale,  as  regulated  by  law  and  trade  union  action,  have  gradually 
emancipated  the  workingman,  and  wages  have  risen,  while  the  prices  of 
nlany  articles  of  consumption  have  declined. 

This  progress,  however,  to  which  the  trade  unions  have  largely  and 
nobly  contributed,  is  not  yet  complete.  I'nlil  \\itliin  the  last  generation,  the 


114  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

problem  confronting  the  United  States  as  an  industrial  nation,  was  how  to 
increase  the  public  wealth ;  now,  the  question  is  how  to  distribute  the  vast 
riches  which  have  accumulated,  very  largely  as  a  result  of  the  efforts  put 
forth  by  workingmen.  In  this  evolution,  society  has  reached  a  stage 
where,  in  return  for  his  day's  toil,  it  is  possible  to  give  the  workingman  a 
wage  upon  which  he  may  live  with  reasonable  comfort  and  decency,  and 
with  which  he  may  obtain  the  necessaries  and  some  of  the  pleasures  of  life, 
which,  in  the  past,  society  was  too  poor  to  provide  for  him.  The  enor- 
mous increase  in  the  productivity  of  labor,  due  to  the  invention  of  machines 
and  to  the  increased  intelligence  of  the  workers,  has  now  made  possible  a 
condition  which  will  permit  the  wage  earner  to  enjoy  a  small,  but  fairly  com- 
fortable home,  and  to  secure  a  reasonable  amount  of  nourishing  food.  The 
realization  of  this  possibility  is  contingent  only  upon  the  formation  of  strong, 
compact  trade  unions  and  upon  the  demonstration  to  the  American  people 
of  the  fact  that  the  necessary  wages  can  be  paid  without  threatening  the 
industrial  supremacy  of  the  nation. 

Much  that  has  been  said  about  the  American  standard  of  living  has 
been  vague,  but  to  a  large  extent  this  vagueness  is  inevitable.  It  is  easy  to 
state  what  sum  of  money  a  given  man  should  earn,  but  it  is  hard  to  define 
just  exactly  what  necessaries,  comforts,  and  small  luxuries  a  whole  working 
population  should  receive.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  all  the  vagueness, 
there  remain  in  the  mind  of  the  workingman  certain  more  or  less  definite 
things  which  make  up  to  him  what  he  calls  the  American  standard  of  living, 
and  a  certain  sum  which,  he  feels  or  believes  is  a  living  wage.  It  is  not 
reasonable  to  compare  the  American  standard  of  living  w7ith  the  British, 
the  German,  the  Russian,  or  the  Chinese  standards.  The  American  de- 
mands and  receives  better  wages  and  better  conditions  of  life  than  either 
the  Englishman  or  the  German,  and  there  is  no  comparison  possible  between 
his  standard  and  that  of  the  Russian  or  of  the  Chinaman.  The  American 
public  has  always  sympathized,  and  will  continue  to  sympathize,  .with  the 
demand  of  the  American  workman  that  he  maintain  his  superiority  over  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  11$ 

conditions  of  life  which  prevail  in  other  countries.  The  American  people, 
with  that  far-sighted,  practical  idealism  characteristic  of  them,  have 
come  to  realize  that  it  pays  to  maintain  workmen  at  a  high  standard  of  ex- 
cellence, just  as  they  realize  that  universal  free  education  pays:  but  even 
apart  from  this,  and  whether  or  not  it  pays,  the  American  people  are  com- 
mitted to  the  policy  of  the  American  standard  of  living  and  will  vigorously 
defend  it,  if  the  working-men,  through  their  trade  unions,  will  but  insist 
upon  its  maintenance. 

The  American  standard  of  living  of  the  year  1903  is  a  different,  a  bet- 
ter, and  a  higher  standard  than  the  American  standard  of  living  of  the  year 
1803.  The  American  workman  of  the  present  day  is  a  better  workman, 
more  intelligent,  more  industrious,  and  more  efficient  than  his  forefather  of 
a  hundred  years  ago.  Moreover,  the  productivity  of  the  American  workman 
of  the  present  day  is,  by  reason  of  better  organization  and  the  use  of  ma- 
chinery, enormously  in  excess  of  the  productivity  of  the  workman  of  a  cen- 
tury ago.  The  man  who  formerly  turned  out  twenty  articles  a  day  now 
turns  out  a  hundred  or  five  hundred ;  and  in  every  department  of  activity 
men  have  l>ecome  increasingly  able  to  j>erform  more  work  and  to  obtain 
greater  output.  «* 

While  the  standard  of  living  has  risen,  it  has  not,  by  anv  means,  Kepi 
pace  with  the  increased  productivity  of  labor.  The  larger  product  which 
society  now  obtains  from  industry  is  more  than  sufficient  to  enable  the  \\ork- 
ingnian  of  the  present  time  to  maintain  a  higher  standard  of  living.  To 
attain  this  standard,  he  must  become  organized  and  must  maintain  his  or- 
ganization through  good  and  bad  seasons.  Of  course,  for  different  clashes 
of  workingmen,  trade  unionism  recognizes  different  standards.  l;or  Un- 
skilled workman  it  stands  for  wages  commensurate  with  hi-,  skill  and  know! 
edge,  whether  these  wages  \yc  three,  four,  five,  or  ten  dollars  a  day.  There 
are  even  now  men  who  are  receiving  five  or  six  dollars  a  day.  \\lio  are  not 
obtaining  nearly  all  to  which  they  are  fairly  entitled.  \»  union  seeks  t<> 
regulate  wages  for  any  but  its  own  trade;  and  because  a  definite  minimum 


Il6  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

is  set  for  unskilled  labor,  it  does  not  follow  that  much  higher  wages  should 
not  be  paid  to  men  engaged  at  more  difficult  work,  or  work  requiring  a 
higher  degree  of  skill  and  intelligence. 

In  the  following  pages  I  shall  attempt  to  define  what  I  consider  the 
American  standard  of  living  for  unskilled  workingmen  and  the  minimum 
wage  upon  which  this  standard  can  be  maintained.  I  do  not  mean  that 
s-ome  unskilled  workingmen,  employed  in  extra  hazardous  occupations, 
should  not  receive  much  more  than  the  ordinary  unskilled  worker ;  and  the 
sum  suggested  would  be  totally  inadequate  for  workmen  in  trades  requiring 
years  of  training  or  a  high  degree  of  skill.  It  would  also  be  inadequate  for 
workmen  living  in  very  large  cities.  Further,  I  believe  that  what  should 
now  be  considered  as  the  American  standard  and  as  a  minimum  wage,  will, 
in  the  course  of  ten  or  twenty  years,  cease  to  be  so  considered,  since  it  is 
reasonable  to  anticipate  that  the  earnings  of  workingmen  and  their  require- 
ments for  comfort,  will,  with  the  progress  of  the  age,  increase  in  the  future 
as  they  have  in  the  past. 

In  cities  of  from  five  thousand  to  one  hundred  thousand  inhabitants,  the 
American  standard  of  living  should  mean,  to  the  ordinary  unskilled  work- 
man with  an  average  family,  a  comfortable  house  of  at  least  six  rooms.  It 
should  mean  a  bathroom,  good  sanitary  plumbing,  a  parlor,  dining-room, 
kitchen,  and  sufficient  sleeping  room  that  decency  may  be  preserved  and  a 
reasonable  degree  of  comfort  maintained.  The  American  standard  of  liv- 
ing should  mean,  to  the  unskilled  workman,  carpets,  pictures,  books,  and  fur- 
niture with  which  to  make  home  bright,  comfortable,  and  attractive  for  him- 
self and  his  family,  an  ample  supply  of  clothing  suitable  for  winter  and  sum- 
mer, and  above  all  a  sufficient  quantity  of  good,  wholesome,  nourishing  food 
at  all  times  of  the  year.  The  American  standard  of  living,  moreover,  should 
mean  to  the  unskilled  workman,  that  his  children  be  kept  in  school  until  they 
have  attained  the  age  of  sixteen  at  least,  and  that  he  be  enabled  to  lay  by 
sufficient  to  maintain  himself  and  his  family  in  times  of  illness,  or  at  tlr.i 
close  of  his  industrial  life,  when  age  and  weakness  render  further  work  im- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  117 

possible;  and  to  make  provision  for  his  family  against  his  premature  death 
from  accident  or  otherwise. 

This,  or  something  like  this,  is  the  American  standard  of  living,  as  it 
exists  in  the  ideals  of  the  unskilled  workingmen.  There  are,  of  course,  dif- 
ferences in  the  way  in  which  men  regard  their  wants,  and  no  matter  how 
closely  the  majority  attain  to  this  standard,  there  will  always  be  a  small  mi- 
nority, who  will  waste  their  money  through  intemperance  or  other  indul- 
gences, or  whose  children  are  so  many  that  a  reasonable  standard  cannot 
be  maintained  upon  any  attainable  wage.  For  the  great  majority  of  men, 
however,  who  are  willing  to  work  and  are  not  incapacitated  by  physical, 
mental,  or  moral  defects,  the  manner  of  living  above  described  is  an  approx- 
imate statement  of  what  their  standard  should  be ;  and  with  the  great  pro- 
ductivity of  American  labor,  I  l>elieve  it  not  unreasonable  to  say  that  these 
things  should  now  l>e  possessed  by  every  workingman,  however  unskilled. 

Life  under  these  conditions  would  mean  the  removal  of  much  of  the 
temptation  to  drunkenness  which  arises  from  the  absence  of  a  comfortable 
dwelling  place.  It  would  mean  the  decency  and  morality  which  come 
from  the  proper  separation  of  the  sexes  in  the  homes  of  the  poor,  and  the 
cleanliness  and  health  which  arise  from  having  proper  bathrooms,  proper 
drains,  and  suitable  conditions  in  and  alx>ut  the  house.  These  comforts  and 
conveniences,  which  are  already  possessed  by  many  artisans  in  the  skilled 
trades,  should  l>e  within  the  reach  of  any  workingman  in  the  country  who 
is  willing  and  able  to  perform  some  useful  service  to  society.  In  this  way 
the  American  standard  should  mean  for  the  great  mass  of  unskilled  work- 
men life  under  conditions  which  would  permit  them  to  enjoy  some  of  the 
comforts  and  pleasures  of  lile  and  to  avail  themselves  of  some  of  the  opi>or- 
tunities  for  intellectual  development. 

The  American,  as  a  practical  business  man.  always  asks  what  a  desired 
innovation  will  cost,  and  until  he  hears  the  price,  reserves  his  opinion  as  to 
whether  a  thing  is  Utopian  or  a  practicable  idea.  What  wages,  therefore, 
are  necessary  to  maintain  this  American  standard?  This  question  was  put 
to  me  by  the  attorneys  for  the  coal  companies  during  the  sessions  oi  the  An- 


Il8  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

thracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  and  at  that  time  I  stated  that  the  very  least 
upon  which  an  unskilled  workman  could  maintain  a  desirable  standard  of 
living,  was  $600  a  year.  Since  that  time  I  have  had  no  occasion  to  change 
this  estimate.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  this  estimate  applies  more  exactly 
to  workmen  in  towns  of  from  five  thousand  to  one  hundred  thousand  inhab- 
itants, than  it  does  to  other  places.  In  speaking  of  $600  for  unskilled 
workmen,  I  do  not  mean  to  include  farm  hands  or  men  in  fural  communi- 
ties, where  the  cost  of  living  is  less  and  the  standard  of  living  not  so  high. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  cities  of  over  one  hundred  thousand,  and  especially  in 
cities  of  over  half  a  million,  $600  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  insufficient 
to  maintain  this  standard  for  unskilled  workingmen.  This  is  more  partic- 
ularly true  of  the  city  of  New  York,  where  the  cost  of  maintaining  a  fair 
standard  of  living  would  be  much  greater,  owing  to  excessive  rents,  and 
where  the  ideal  of  a  separate  small  house  for  the  workman  must  itself  be 
given  up.  For  the  great  mass  of  unskilled  workingmen,  however,  residing 
in  towns  and  cities  with  a  population  of  from  five  thousand  to  one  hundred 
thousand,  the  fair  wage,  a  wage  consistent  with  American  standards  of  liv- 
ing, should  not  be  less  than  $600  a  year.  Less  than  this  would,  in  my 
judgment,  be  insufficient  to  give  to  the  workingman  those  necessaries  and 
comforts  and  those  small  luxuries  which  are  no\v  considered  essential. 

At  the  present  time  the  organized  skilled  workman  is  securing  a  larger, 
although  by  no  means  a  sufficient,  share  of  the  reasonable  satisfactions  of 
life.  Through  the  cheaper  building  of  houses  and  through  the  extension 
of  electric  railways,  which  permits  a  lowering  of  ground  rents,  the  working- 
man  is  now  able  to  secure  a  comfortable  house  built  according  to  modern 
requirements  and  with  modern  appliances,  more  cheaply  than  was  possible 
a  dozen  years  ago.  The  department  stores,  with  their  free  delivery  system, 
have  tended  to  bring  down  the  prices  of  many  articles  of  furniture  and 
household  service;  and  the  transportation  facilities  of  the  country,  the  rail- 
roads, wharves,  docks,  and  markets,  have  brought  within  reach  of  the  work- 
man many  things  formerly  withheld  from  him.  However,  the" man  with  an 
income  of  less  than  $600  a  year  can  profit  but  little  from  these  improve- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  1 19 

* 

ments ;  and  owing  to  his  meagre  pay,  the  unskilled  workman  has  been  de- 
prived of  the  ability  to  take  advantage  of  them.  \Yhen  he  receives  a 
wage  of  $600  a  year — and  at  this  time  the  unskilled  workman  should 
receive  this  wage — opportunity  for  better  living  will  come  within  his  reach. 
The  effect  of  this  will  be  of  great  benefit  to  society  at  large,  as  well  as  to  the 
unskilled  workman  himself.  Not  only  is  the  workingman  who  has  a  com- 
fortable home  with  proper  sanitary  appliances  a  better  and  more  efficient 
workman  than  he  who  sleeps  in  a  dirty  lodging  house  or  is  crowded  into  a 
tenement,  but  society  gains  in  other  ways.  Once  the  workingman  obtains 
this  income  and  learns  how  to  use  it,  the  drink  bill  of  the  community  will 
be  diminished,  the  expenditure  for  apprehending,  trying,  and  imprisoning 
criminals  will  be  reduced,  and  many  other  evils  of  society  will  be  lessened. 
The  most  important  result,  however,  of  such  an  increase  in  wages  upon  the 
part  of  the  unskilled  workman  would  be  an  enormous  incentive  to  industry, 
a  vast  increase  in  the  demand  for  goods,  and  a  more  rapid  march  of  the 
United  States  towards  industrial  supremacy. 

The  American  trade  unionists,  therefore,  should  keep  constantly  in 
mind,  and  should,  within  the  coming  years,  attempt  to  realize  the  ideal  of 
a  $600  minimum  wage  for  unskilled  workmen,  whether  of  native  or  of 
foreign  birth.  The  increase  will  pay  for  itself.  A  $(xx>  man.  working 
even  as  a  common  laborer,  will  be  a  better  workman  and  a  better  citizen  than 
the  £450  man  now  doing  this  class  of  work,  just  as  the  latter  is  better 
than  the  Mexican  peon  working  at  twenty-five  cents  a  day.  or  the  Chinese 
coolie  toiling  for  five  or  ten  cents  a  day.  The  employer  and  the  community 
in  general  will  l>e  better  off  when  the  conditions  of  labor  are  improved  and 
the  wages  of  the  workingmcn  arc  increased. 

High  wages  mean  more  than  industrial  efficiency,  more  than  the  grati- 
fication of  the  reasonable  desires  of  the  working  population.  They  con- 
tribute to  the  wealth  and  future  of  the  nation,  which  are  not  to  l>e  measured 
by  its  palaces  and  millionaires,  but  rather  by  the  enlightened  contentment 
and  prosperity  of  its  millions  of  workers,  who  constitute  the  bone  and  sinew 
of  the  land. 


CHAPTER  XV 
THE  DAY'S  WORK 

Trade  Unions  Lessen  the  Hours  of  Labor.  Work  from  Sun  to  Sun.  Work  of 
Government  Employees.  The  Building  Trades.  The  Working  Day  in  Factories.  The 
Struggle  for  the  Eight-hour  Day.  Victories  of  the  Cigar  Makers  and  the  Bituminous 
miners.  Short  Hours  in  Australia,  the  United  States,  England,  and  the  European 
Continent.  The  Day's  Work  in  the  Sweated  Trades.  Advantage  to  the  Capitalists 
and  the  Public.  The  Economy  of  Short  Hours.  The  Experience  of  the  Soft  Coal 
Fields.  Better  Work  and  Better  Men.  Are  Short-hour  Laws  Constitutional?  "De- 
creasing the  Hours  Increases  the  Pay."  Difference  between  Manual  and  Mental 
Workers. 

HP  HE  success  of  organized  labor  in  increasing  the  wages  of  workmen  has 
*  been  brilliant  and  signal,  but  has  not  been  more  important  than  its 
success  in  reducing  the  hours  of  labor.  An  increase  in  the  rate  of  wages 
means  more  of  the  comforts  and  luxuries  of  life;  a  decrease  in  hours,  the 
opportunity  to  enjoy  these  comforts  and  luxuries.  The  shortening  of  the 
working  day,  further,  stands  for  freedom  from  toil  at  the  time  when  it  be- 
comes most  exacting,  nerve  wearing,  and  dangerous ;  still  further,  it  stands 
for  leisure,  recreation,  education,  and  family  life. 

Reductions  in  the  hours  of  work  have  been  the  more  significant  because 
such  decreases,  once  gained,  have  been  well  defended  and  rarely  surrendered. 
An  increase  in  wages  may  perhaps  be  nullified  in  part  by  increased  prices, 
a  thing  which  cannot  well  occur  in  the  case  of  a  decrease  in  hours.  Again, 
there  is  always  a  strong  temptation  for  employers  to  seek  to  reduce  wages 
as  soon  as  bad  times  come,  whereas  at  such  times  there  is  not  so  strong  as 
the  same  incentive  to  increase  hours,  because  there  is  less  demand  for  labor. 

During  the  nineteenth  century  American  trade  unions  diminished  the 
length  of  the  working  day  from  twelve,  and  in  some  cases  fourteen,  to  ten, 
nine,  and  eight  hours.  At  the  beginning  of  the  century  man  worked  from  sun 

(120) 


MINER  DK.S(  KMMM.  SHAM    i:\    KI.I. \\HIK   <>t<    "('\(;K" 

Ti»  wf)tk  hundreds  of  feet  l>elf  w  ground.      Notice  lamp  mid  drilN 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  121 

to  sun,  but  in  one  industry  after  another  the  trade  unions  secured  a  radical 
reduction  in  the  hours  of  labor.  In  this  movement  the  Federal  and  State 
Governments  aided.  In  1840  President  Van  Buren  instituted  in  the  gov- 
ernment navy  yards  a  maximum  ten-hour  day,  which  was  also  accepted  by 
other  ship  builders,  and  in  1867  the  hours  of  labor  were  further  reduced 
from  ten  to  eight. 

In  the  reduction  of  hours  by  means  of  trade  unions  the  building  trades 
have  led  all  other  organizations,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  unions  in  these 
trades  were  among  the  first  to  organize  and  to  grow  strong,  and  to  the  fur- 
ther fact  that  they  were  federated  and  acted  in  concert.  Moreover,  there 
was  little  competition  between  men  employed  in  the  building  trades  of  one 
city  as  against  those  employed  in  the  building  trades  of  another  city ;  that  is 
to  say,  the  building  trade  employees  of  New  York  or  Philadelphia  did  not 
compete  with  those  of  Baltimore  or  Charleston,  and,  therefore,  no  tendency 
could  exist  for  the  worst  paid  workmen  in  the  country  to  set  a  standard  for 
the  best  paid.  At  the  beginning  of  the  century  the  men  in  the  building  trades 
worked  as  long  as  daylight  lasted,  but  shortly  after  the  second  war  with 
Great  Britain,  the  ship  caq>enters  attempted  to  secure  a  reduction  of  work 
to  ten  hours,  and  by  means  of  strikes,  succeeded  in  the  year  1825.  During 
the  next  quarter  of  a  century  one  victory  after  another  was  achieved  by  the 
various  building  trade  organizations,  so  that  at  the  close  of  the  Mexican 
\Var,  the  general  working  time  in  the  industry  was  ten  hours  a  day.  From 
that  time  on,  especially  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  a  demand  arose 
for  a  still  further  reduction  of  the  working  day  from  ten  to  eight  hours. 
The  cities  had  grown  apace,  and  the  distance  from  a  man's  home  to  his  work 
had  l)ecomc  so  great  that  the  trip  amounted  to  a  considerable  deduction 
from  his  real  leisure.  The  struggle  for  a  maximum  eight-hour  day  was 
accordingly  taken  up  by  the  men  in  the  building  trades.  Spurred  on  by  the 
successes  already  achieved  and  encouraged  by  the  gradual  reduction  of  the 
hours  of  lalx>r  in  F.ngland  and  Australia,  the  American  building  operatives, 
by  means  of  a  series  of  strikes,  by  negotiation,  conciliation,  and  in  other 


122  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ways,  reduced  the  hours  of  labor  to  eight  per  day  and  in  a  number  of  trades 
to  forty-four  per  week. 

The  same  development  has  taken  place,  although  to  a  somewhat  less 
extent,  in  the  factories.  At  the  beginning  of  the  century  the  factories  fre- 
quently worked  their  hands  twelve  and  fourteen  hours,  and  for  a  long  time 
they  maintained  an  average  of  about  eleven  hours  per  day.  The  trade 
unions  had  attempted  to  secure  a  reduction  of  these  hours  by  means  of  legis- 
lation and  otherwise,  but  it  was  not  until  1874  that  the  first  law,  by  which 
the  hours  of  labor  \vere  reduced  to  ten,  was  enacted.  This  law,  passed  in 
Massachusetts,  was  directed  against  the  excessive  labor  of  women  and  chil- 
dren, but  in  actual  practice  applied  to  workers  of  all  ages  and  both 
sexes.  During  the  next  fifteen  years  one  state  after  another,  following  the 
example  of  Massachusetts,  adopted  a  working  day  of  ten  hours  or  less.  In 
New  Jersey  the  legal  working  time  for  women  in  factories  is  fifty-five  hours 
per  week,  and  in  Massachusetts  a  reduction  has  now  been  made  from  sixty 
to  fifty-eight  hours.  The  Southern  States,  however,  which  have  made  rapid 
progress,  especially  in  cotton  manufacturing,  have,  as  a  general  rule,  not 
responded  to  the  demand  for  a  shorter  working  day — the  South  lacking 
effective  labor  organizations  to  compel  such  legislation. 

Since  the  Civil  War  the  task  of  securing  shorter  hours  has  devolved 
to  an  increasing  extent  upon  trade  unionists.  After  the  close  of  the  War, 
eight-hour  leagues  were  established  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  and 
hours  were  reduced  in  many  places,  but  the  activities  of  these  leagues  were 
interrupted  by  the  crisis  of  1873  and  the  bad  times  following,  and  it  was 
not  until  the  early  years  of  the  eighties  that  the  work  was  again  undertaken, 
in  this  instance  by  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and  it  is  now  being  vigorously 
prosecuted  by  the  unions  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
The  benefits  of  the  eight-hour  day  are  being  extended  to  many  classes  of 
workmen  hitherto  deprived  of  them.  The  Cigar  Makers  succeeded  in  ob- 
taining the  eight-hour  day  in  1885,  the  great  majority  of  the  bituminous 
miners  in  1898  and  1899,  and  in  1903  the  Anthracite  miners  obtained  a  nine- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  12} 

hour  day.  The  New  York  State  Department  of  Latx>r  found  that  of 
647,000  persons  employed  in  factories  inspected  by  it  in  1901,  38^,  and  in 
New  York  City  54^,  were  working  9^  hours  a  day  or  less.  Among  the  or- 
ganized laborers,  the  working  hours  were  considerably  less  than  this,  almost 
one-half  of  the  organized  workmen  and  workwomen  of  the  State  of  New 
York  enjoying  a  maximum  eight-hour  day.1 

The  same  struggle  for  a  shortening  of  the  working  day  is  going  on  in 
England  and  Australia,  in  France,  Germany,  Belgium,  and  even  in  such 
backward  countries  as  Italy,  Spain,  and  Hungary.  Generally  speaking,  the 
Englishman  has  secured  shorter  hours  than  the  American,  and  the  Aus- 
tralian shorter  hours  than  the  Englishman.  The  average  length  of  the 
American  working  day  may  be  fixed  at  about  ten  hours.  In  deciding  upon 
this  number  it  must  be  taken  into  consideration  that,  while  the  vast  body  of 
organized  laborers  work  a  shorter  time  and  while  hundreds  of  thousands 
in  the  building  trades  work  only  eight  hours  or  less,  there  are  again  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  employed  on  steam  railroads,  on  the  docks,  on  street 
railways,  and  elsewhere,  whose  working  day  is  in  excess  of  ten  hours. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  work  of  the  modern  world  is  becoming  more 
and  more  a  matter  of  nervous  energy,  of  skill,  and  intelligence,  and  less  a 
matter  of  mere  brute  force,  the  reduction  of  hours  is  not  only  of  advantage, 
but  of  absolute  necessity.  Even  when  work  is  simply  and  purely  physical, 
it  is  not  economical  to  work  long  hours,  but  a  shorter  day  of  labor  is  im- 
perative when  work  is  intense  or  when  intelligence,  ingenuity,  and  invent- 
iveness are  required.  You  cannot  get  more  out  of  a  man  than  is  in  him, 
and  if  you  take  too  much  one  day,  there  will  \ye  so  much  less  to  obtain  on 
succeeding  days.  As  stated  by  Professor  Clark  of  Columbia  I'niversity: 
"If  you  want  a  man  to  work  for  you  one  day  and  one  day  only,  and  secure 
the  greatest  i>ossible  amount  of  work  he  is  capable  of  performing  you  must 
make  him  work  for  twenlv-four  hours.  If  you  would  have  him  work  a  week 


1  The  efforts  of  trade  unions  have  also  been    directed    towards    maintaining    Sun- 
days and  the  u*t!al  holidays  ns  days  of  rest. 


124  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

it  will  be  necessary  to  reduce  the  time  to  twenty  hours  a  day;  if  you  want 
him  to  work  for  a  month  a  still  further  reduction  to  eighteen  hours  a  day. 
For  the  year,  fifteen  hours  a  day  will  do;  for  several  years,  ten  hours;  but 
if  you  wish  to  get  the  most  out  of  a  man  for  a  working  lifetime,  you  will 
have  to  reduce  his  hours  of  labor  to  eight  each  day." 

The  most  curious  feature  about  the  history  of  the  reduction  of  hours 
is  that  in  almost  all  cases  the  trade  unions  have  been  obliged  to  force  em- 
ployers, strongly  against  their  will,  to  grant  reductions  which  have  ulti- 
mately proved  to  their  advantage.  The  English  mill  owners  in  the  begin- 
ning and  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  claimed  that  they  would  be  ruined 
if  hours  were  reduced ;  and  the  same  complaint  was  made  by  the  New  Eng- 
land manufacturers  in  the  seventies  and  is  being  now  repeated  by  the  South- 
ern mill  owners.  Wherever  the  reduction  has  been  made,  however,  the 
result  has  been  a  decided  benefit  not  only  to  the  workman  but  to  his  em- 
ployer. In  a  succeeding  chapter  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  how  short  hours, 
like  other  demands  of  trade  unions,  have  benefited  employers,  and  how  an 
absolute  increase  in  the  amount  of  work  performed  during  a  day  has  fre- 
quently resulted  from  a  shortening  of  the  working  day. 

In  so  far  as  lessened  hours  mean  increased  production  and  cheapened 
cost,  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  advisability  of  shortening  the  work- 
ing day,  and  in  such  cases  employers  should  be  compelled  to  seek  their  owrn 
permanent  interest  by  adjusting  themselves  to  reasonable  conditions.  Even 
where  the  advantage  to  the  employer  is  not  so  apparent,  an  excessive  num- 
ber of  working  hours  should  not  be  tolerated.  A  reduction  in  hours  means 
a  strengthening  of  the  workman,  the  growth  of  a  keener  intelligence,  and 
an  improvement  in  his  home  life.  The  workingman's  self-appointed  pro- 
tectors among  the  employing  classes  have  from  the  beginning  alleged  that  a 
reduction  in  hours  means  more  time  spent  in  drinking  and  dissipation,  since 
the  employee  will  not  know  what"  to  do  with  his  newly  acquired  leisure. 
This  assertion,  reiterated  incessantly,  has  been  completely  contradicted  by 
everyday  experience  and  by  the  history  of  the  working  classes.  When  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  12$ 

workingman  comes  from  mill  or  mine,  having  taxed  to  the  utmost  his  mus- 
cular and  nervous  energy,  depressed  by  an  excessive  expenditure  of  vital 
force,  it  is  small  wonder  if  he  seek  a  stimulus  in  alcohol  or  in  other  crude 
pleasures.  A  man  who  has  labored  for  ten  or  twelve  hours  at  exhausting 
toil  is  in  no  fit  condition  to  enjoy  books,  pictures,  music,  or  the  sane  pleasures 
of  a  well-regulated  family  life.  The  unanimous  testimony  of  all  competent 
observers,  teachers,  ministers,  and  sociologists,  has  been  to  the  effect  that  a 
reduction  in  the  hours  of  lal)or  almost  invariably  means  an  improvement  in 
the  whole  moral  tone  of  the  community,  a  raising  of  the  standard  of  living, 
a  growth  of  the  self-respect  of  the  workingman,  and  a  diminution,  not  an 
increase,  in  drunkenness,  violence,  and  crime.  If  the  American  workman 
can  be  entrusted  with  the  suffrage,  it  is  certainly  safe  to  entrust  him  with 
a  few  hours  of  leisure.  The  laborer  is  worthy  not  only  of  his  hire,  but  also 
of  the  right  to  live. 

An  attempt  is  frequently  made  to  ridicule  the  demands  of  trade  union- 
ists for  a  reduction  of  hours  by  exaggerating  these  demands.  When  an 
employer  is  asked  to  reduce  the  hours  of  his  workmen  to  eight,  he  frequently 
asks,  "Why  not  to  six,  or  four,  or  two,  or  one?"  The  workingman  might 
with  equal  justice  retort,  "If  you  demand  that  we  work  ten  hours  a  day, 
then  why  not  fifteen,  or  twenty,  or  twenty-four?"  Trade  unionists  do  not 
demand  or  desire  an  unreasonable  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor,  and  they 
are  willing  that  each  demand  for  such  reduction  be  considered  on  its  own 
merits  and  l>e  granted  or  withheld  accordingly. 

The  attorneys  who  cross-examined  me  l>efore  the  Anthracite  Coal 
Strike  Commission  asserted  that  they  themselves  worked  fourteen  to  fif- 
teen hours  a  day,  and  they  l>elieved  that  I  also  was  in  the  habit  of  working 
for  an  equal  numl>er  of  hours.  They  said  they  did  not  believe  that  the  trade 
union  has  any  moral  right  to  decree  that  a  free  American  citizen,  whether 
he  be  carpenter,  miner,  or  conductor,  should  not  work  more  than  a  given 
number  of  hours.  It  is  true  that  the  lawyer,  doctor,  or  minister  does  fre- 
quently work  excessive  hours  and  that  he  has  no  desire  for  their  lim- 


126  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

itation  by  law  or  by  concerted  action.  There  is  a  difference,  however, 
in  the  conditions  under  which  the  work  of  professional  men  and  that 
of  the  manual  wage  earners  is  performed.  As  a  rule,  the  lawyer 
receives  increased  remuneration  for  increased  hours  of  work,  and  this 
is  true  also  of  the  independent  farmer.  The  manual  wage  earner, 
on  the  other  hand,  receives,  in  the  long  run,  not  more  but  actually 
less  pay  for  more  work.  The  rhyme  of  trade  unionists,  "Whether 
you  work  by  the  piece  or  work  by  the  day,  decreasing  the  hours  in- 
creases the  pay,"  while  seemingly  paradoxical,  is,  in  the  majority  of  cases, 
absolutely  and  literally  true.  An  individual  wage  earner  may  gain  a  tem- 
porary advantage  over  his  fellow-craftsmen  by  making  an  exception  and 
working  a  few  hours  extra,  but  as  soon  as  all  men  have  increased  their  hours 
to  the  same  limit,  it  will  usually  be  found  that  wages  for  the  day  are  not 
higher  and  wages  for  the  hour  are,  of  course,  actually  lower.  Statistics 
show  that  the  occupations  where  short  hours  prevail  are,  upon  the  whole, 
those  in  which  wages  are  highest  and  localities  in  which  hours  are  longest 
are  those  in  which  wages  are  lowest. 

Still  another  difference  exists  between  the  labor  of  the  employer  who 
claims  that  "I  work  more  hours  in  a  day  than  any  man  in  my  employ,"  and 
the  labor  of  his  employees.  The  employer,  as  frequently  the  professional 
man,  works  when  he  will,  how  he  will,  where  he  will,  and  usually  at  what  he 
will,  while,  as  a  general  rule,  and  with  exceptions,  the  manual  workman 
labors,  when,  where,  how,  and  at  what  he  must.  The  difference  between 
working  at  what  interests  you  and  brings  you  profit  and  at  tasks  given  to 
you  by  others  is  as  great  as  the  difference  between  recreation  and  toil. 

The  successful  attempts  of  trade  unions  to  reduce  hours  of  labor  have 
encountered  violent  opposition.  It  is  held  by  many  otherwise  well-informed 
men  that  it  is  immoral  and  un-American  to  restrict  the  number  of  hours  of 
workingmen.  The  ordinary  critic  says,  "It  is  all  right  for  the  unionist  to 
refuse  to  work  over  eight  hours,  but  he  should  not  refuse  to  permit  an  un- 
usually industrious  man  to  work  ten  or  twelve  hours."  Unless  the  union 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  127 

establishes  a  maximum,  however,  the  employer  \vill  establish  a  minimum. 
tf  some  men  are  willing  to  work  for  eight  and  some  for  twelve  hours  a  day, 
it  will  soon  be  found  that  the  men  who  refuse  to  work  for  more  than  eight 
hours  will  find  it  difficult  or  impossible  to  secure  work,  and  the  final  result 
will  be  that  all  men  will  work  as  long  hours  as  the  most  subservient  and 
cringing  of  them,  and  will  not  receive  more  wages  for  the  long  than  for  the 
short  working  day.  There  is  no  alternative  in  this  matter  between  the  es- 
tablishment, either  by  the  union  alone  or  by  the  union  and  employer  com- 
bined, of  a  maximum  number  of  hours  and  the  establishment  by  the  em- 
ployer alone  of  a  minimum  number  of  hours.  Unless  all  workingmen  are 
to  be  chained  to  their  work  as  long  as  it  pays  or  seems  to  pay  the  employer 
to  keep  them  there,  then  they  must  fix  among  themselves  or  with  the  em- 
ployer the  maximum  number  of  hours  that  any  man  will  be  allowed  to  work. 
To  maintain  the  limit  fixed  by  wage  earners  to  the  number  of  hours 
which  they  will  work,  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  regulate  the  question  of 
overtime.  The  ideal  of  an  agreement  upon  the  working  day  should  be  to 
limit  its  length  to  a  reasonable  number  of  hours,  while  at  the  same  time 
permitting  the  employer  in  cases  of  emergency  to  keep  his  men  at  work  for 
a  longer  period.  It  has  l>een  shown  in  practice,  however,  that  where  over- 
time is  paicl  for  at  the  same  rate  as  ordinary  time,  so-called  emergencies 
multiply,  overtime  is  resorted  to  systematically,  and  the  normal  working  day 
is  broken  down.  The  men  who  have  thus  secured  an  eight-hour  day  find 
that  they  are  regularly  working  eight  hours  per  day  plus,  say,  two  hours 
overtime,  and  after  a  few  years,  they  may  receive  for  their  ten  hours  no 
more,  if  not  actually  less,  than  formerly  for  their  eight  hours  of  work.  To 
remedy  this  evil  and  to  avert  this  peril,  trade  unionists  have  in  many  cases 
l>een  obliged  to  charge  for  overtime  at  a  considerably  higher  rate,  such  as 
time  and  a  quarter,  time  and  a  half,  or  double  time.  This  is  fair  to  ihe 
wage  earner,  since  the  last  hour  of  work  is  harder  for  him  than  any  other. 
whereas  to  the  employer,  who  pays  most  for  this  last  hour,  it  is  the  least 
valuable,  since  the  workman  is  tired.  Thenreticallv.  therefore,  the  em- 


128  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

plover  will  work  overtime  only  in  especially  good  seasons  or  in  emergencies. 
In  actual  practice,  however,  overtime,  even  when  paid  for  at  a  higher,  rate, 
tends  often  to  become  systematic  and  to  lengthen  the  working  day  without 
permanently  increasing  wages.  Consequently,  unions  have  frequently  been 
compelled  to  prohibit  overtime  entirely,  to  limit  the  maximum  amount  of 
overtime  per  week  or  month,  or  to  make  other  provision  that  overtime,  while 
serving  the  employer's  purpose,  may  not  be  used  to  break  down  the  standard 
working  day. 

Occasionally,  the  arbitrary  fixing  of  the  length  of  the  working  day 
causes  inconvenience  to  the  public.  A  man  who  wants  to  get  shaved  at 
eight  o'clock  in  the  evening  or  on  Sunday  finds  that  the  union  rules  forbid 
it,  and  a  householder  who  wants  repairs  made  in  his  home  and  would  like 
the  workmen  to  stay  "just  fifteen  or  thirty  minutes  longer"  and  "be  paid  for 
it,"  finds  it  extremely  annoying  that  they  refuse  to  do  so.  In  these  matters, 
however,  the  public  is  frequently  unreasonable,  or,  at  all,  events,  unknowing. 
The  breaking  down  of  a  working  day  is  always  gradual  and  insidious.  The 
men  begin  by  conceding  ten  minutes  here  and  ten  minutes  there,  until  the 
eight-hour  day  becomes  nine  and  eventually  ten  hours  in  length.  But  while 
the  workingman  should  struggle  always  to  maintain  his  standard  working- 
day,  there  is  a  point  beyond  which  it  is  not  fair,  wise,  or  reasonable  to  go. 
The  workman  should  try  to  finish  the  job  and  have  the  place  cleaned  up  by 
the  close  of  the  hour,  and  the  ending  of  the  working  day  should  not  be  made 
the  excuse  for  being  discourteous,  disobliging,  or  arbitrary.  A  lady  told 
me  that  once  she  was  obliged  to  walk  down  from  the  top  floor  of  a  high 
building,  because  the  elevator  man  refused  to  extend  his  working  day  by  a 
few  minutes.  Acts  like  these,  though  fortunately  rare,  result  in  the  exas- 
peration of  the  public  and  in  the  weakening  of  its  sympathy  for  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  working  time. 

Upon  the  whole,  unions  have  been  more  successful  in  reducing  the 
hours  of  labor  by  means  of  strikes  or  trade  agreements  than  by  means  of 
the  law.  Where  these  reductions  have  been  made  by  agreement,  it  has  re- 


*  EE 

o" 

=»•  CO 

1  S 

—  ?r 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  1 29 

quired  months,  or  even  years,  of  patient  and  protracted  effort.  In  a  number 
of  cases  the  organized  workmen  have  agreed  to  accept  a  gradual  reduction 
in  the  hours  of  labor,  the  working  day  being  lessened  by  fifteen  minutes  or 
one-half  hour  each  year,  thus  enabling  the  employer  to  adjust  his  business 
to  the  new  conditions.  Reduction  of  hours  by  means  of  legislation  has  ad- 
vantages, since,  if  the  law  is  enforced,  it  applies  equally  to  all  the  employers 
in  the  state,  although  competition  between  the  various  states  renders  this  ad- 
vantage less,  on  the  whole,  since  the  industry  usually  extends  over  state  lines 
and  the  laws  of  the  various  states  differ. 

The  great  disadvantage  of  legislation  limiting  hours,  however,  apart 
from  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  it,  has  been  the  danger  of  its  being  declared 
unconstitutional.  Laws  limiting  the  hours  of  labor  of  children  have  usually 
been  held  valid,  owing  to  the  fact  that  minors  are  not  in  possession  of  full 
legal  rights,  and.  according  to  the  law,  are  not  capable  of  making  binding 
contracts.  Until  recently  there  was  no  question  raised  as  to  the  complete 
constitutionality  of  laws  limiting  the  hours  of  labor  of  women,  and  where  a 
reduction  in  hours  was  obtained  for  the  female  workers,  it  became  practi- 
cally operative  to  the  advantage  of  the  men  working  with  the  women  in  the 
same  factories.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Illinois  has  held  that, 
as  a  woman  is  a  citizen  and  a  person,  she  comes  under  the  constitutional 
provision  that  "no  person  shall  be  derived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  with- 
out due  process  of  law,''  and  a  limitation  of  her  hours  of  labor  is  held  to  be 
a  deprivation  of  her  lil>erty,  discrimination  against  her  as  compared  with 
men.  and,  therefore,  unconstitutional.  This  is  the  only  instance  on  record 
in  which  a  court  has  rendered  a  decision  of  this  character. 

I>y  reason,  however,  of  the  decision  of  the  t'nited  States  .Supreme 
Court  in  the  case  of  Holdcn  r.v.  Hardy,  the  question  of  the  right  of  the  state- 
under  its  jx)licc  i>owcr  to  limit  the  hours  of  labor  of  all  the  workers,  men. 
women,  and  children,  in  a  s|>ccial  industry,  is  definitely  settled  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  workman.  Laws  have  been  passed  in  various  stales  regulating 
the  hours  of  labor  of  railroad  and  street  railway  employees,  of  bakers,  bar- 
4 


130  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

bers,  and  other  persons,  and  these  laws  have  been  upheld  on  the  ground  of 
the  police  power  of  the  state.  The  Supreme  Court,  in  its  decision,  takes 
the  high  position  that  the  state  is  interested  in  the  individual  health,  safety, 
and  welfare  of  the  workmen  and  can  protect  them  by  means  of  the  police 
power,  even  in  apparent  violation  of  the  freedom  of  contract.  The  decision 
of  the  Court  is  a  strong  endorsement  of  the  position  maintained  for  many 
years  by  trade  unionists,  and  I  have  therefore  quoted  a  portion  of  it,  itali- 
cizing certain  words :  "The  legislature  has  also  recognized  the  fact,  which 
the  experience  of  legislatures  in  many  States  has  corroborated,  that  the  pro- 
prietors of  these  establishments  and  their  operatives  do  not  stand  upon  an 
equality,  and  that  their  interests  are,  to  a  certain  extent,  conflicting.  The 
former  naturally  desire  to  obtain  as  much  labor  as  possible  from  their  em- 
ployees, while  the  latter  are  often  induced,  by  the  fear  of  discharge,  to  con- 
form to  regulations  which  their  judgment,  fairly  exercised,  would  pro- 
nounce to  be  detrimental  to  their  health  or  strength.  In  other  words  the 
proprietors  lay  down  the  rules  and  the  laborers  are  practically  constrained 
to  obey  them.  In  such  cases  self-interest  is  often  an  unsafe  guide,  and  the 
legislature  may  properly  impose  its  authority.  It  may  not  be  improper  to 
suggest  in  this  connection  that  although  the  prosecution  in  this  case  was 
against  the  employer  of  labor,  who  apparently,  under  the  statute,  is  the  only 
one  liable,  his  defense  is  not  that  his  right  to  contract  has  been  infringed 
upon,  but  that  the  act  works  a  peculiar  hardship  to  his  employees,  whose 
right  to  labor  as  long  as  they  please  is  alleged  to  be  thereby  violated.  The 
argument  would  certainly  come  with  better  grace  and  cogency  from  the 
latter  class.  But  the  fact  that  both  parties  are  of  full  age  and  competent 
to  contract  does  not  necessarily  deprive  the  state  of  the  power  to  interfere 
where  the  parties  do  not  stand  upon  an  equality,  or  where  the  public  health 
demands  that  one  party  to  the  contract  shall  be  protected  against  himself. 
The  state  still  retains  an  interest  in  his  welfare,  however  reckless  he  may  be. 
The  whole  is  no  greater  than  the  sum  of  all  the  parts,  and  when  the  indi- 
vidual health,  safety,  and  welfare  are  sacrificed  or  neglected  the  State  must 
suffer." 


CHAPTER  XVI 
THE  WORK  OF  WOMEN  AND  CHILDREN 

Women  in  Industry.  From  Home  to  Factory.  The  Protection  of  Women  by 
Trade  Unions.  The  Wages  of  Women.  Life  on  Five  Dollars  a  Week.  Number  of 
Women  Unionists  Small,  but  Increasing.  The  Teachers  and  the  Trade  Union  Move- 
ment. Equal  Pay  for  Equal  Work.  The  Exploitation  of  Children.  Its  Wastefulness. 
Its  Immorality.  Child  Labor  and  Vagrancy.  The  Unions  Struggle  against  Unre- 
stricted Child  Labor.  Wages  of  Children  Deducted  from  the  Wages  of  their  Parents. 
In  School  until  Sixteen. 

II'"  trade  unionism  had  rendered  no  other  service  to  humanity,  it  would 
have  justified  its  existence  by  its  efforts  in  1>ehalf  of  working  women 
and  children.  Unfortunately,  society  does  not  seem  to  feel  itself  capable 
of  conducting  its  industries  without  the  aid  of  its  weaker  members.  \Yith 
each  advance  in  production,  with  each  increase  in  wealth  and  the  capacity 
of  producing  wealth,  women  and  children,  in  ever  larger  numbers,  are 
drafted  into  service.  In  this  development,  the  woman,  like  the  child,  has 
l>een  torn  from  her  home  and  has  been  put  into  factories,  subject  to  the 
dictation  of  an  employer  or  task-master.  The  integrity  of  the  home,  in 
which  the  woman  formerly  jxlayed  her  part  and  performed  her  quota  of 
work,  has  been  shattered  by  the  invasion  of  the  machine  and  the  factory 
system.  Through  the  cheapened  production  which  has  resulted  from  the 
organization  of  industry  on  a  large  scale,  woman  has  become  incapable  of 
performing  at  home  the  work  to  which  she  was  once  accustomed,  and  has 
l)ccn  compelled  to  seek  her  means  of  subsistence  in  competition  with  men. 
To  a  certain  extent  woman  is  now  simply  doing  by  machine  in  the  factory 
what  she  formerly  did  by  hand  at  home,  but  the  conditions  <>f  her  work  and 
life  are  different.  Carding,  spinning,  and  weaving  have  !<>ng  since  ceased 
to  be  profitable  as  home  occupations,  and  laundry  \\nrk,  dairy  work,  the 


132  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

canning  of  fruit,  and  the  like,  are  rapidly  passing  from  the  household  and 
being  elevated  into  special  industries. 

While  it  is  probable  that  in  the  household  of  former  days  the  circum- 
stances under  which  the  work  of  women  and  children  was  carried  on  were 
by  no  means  idyllic,  the  movement  from  home  to  factory  was  accompa- 
nied by  an  aggravation  and  intensifying  of  these  evils.  This  development 
has  been  caused  not  by  the  greed  or  ill-will  of  men,  but  by  conditions  which 
could  not  have  been  avoided  and  by  a  force  which  was  irresistible.  It  is, 
however,  useless  to  deplore  the  past,  or  seek  to  reconstruct  conditions  of  a 
by-gone  age. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  trade  unionism  that  it  has  to  some  extent  allevi- 
ated the  conditions  of  women  in  factories.  Not  only  in  England,  but  in 
the  United  States,  not  only  in  the  past,  but  in  the  present,  have  women  been 
doomed  to  suffer,  and  by  reason  of  their  very  weakness  have  been  forced 
to  engage  in  arduous  toil  for  excessively  long  hours.  The  rate  of  remunera- 
tion for  women  has  always  been  low.  In  almost  all  countries  they  have  re- 
ceived from  one-third  to  one-half  less  than  men,  by  reason,  it  is  said,  of 
their  lesser  strength,  their  greater  liability  to  sickness,  the  reduced  scope 
of  their  employment,  and  the  fact  that  to  a  certain  extent,  husbands,  fathers, 
or  brothers  contribute  to  their  support.  As  a  result  of  these  disabilities, 
women  have  suffered  in  more  ways  than  in  submitting  to  lowered  wages. 
Their  weakness  has  been  an  excuse,  not  for  reduced  but  for  extended  hours 
of  work,  and  the  wages  of  women  solely  dependent  upon  themselves  are  no 
better  or  higher  than  those  of  women  receiving  support  from  relatives. 

The  chief  effort  of  trade  unions  in  ameliorating  the  hardship  of 
women's  work  has  been  in  the  direction  of  excluding  them  from  certain 
kinds  of  employment,  in  improving  the  sanitary  conditions  of  their  work, 
and  in  reducing  the  length  of  their  working  day.  At  one  time,  women  were 
employed  in  mines,  but  through  the  efforts  of  trade  unions  this  inhumanity 
was  done  away  with.  Women  workers  have  also  been  excluded  from  some 
trades  which  impair  their  health  or  injuriously  affect  their  morals. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  133 

Even  at  the  present  time,  the  wages  of  women  are  woefully  deficient, 
although  they  have  been  increased  to  some  extent  through  the  efforts  of 
trade  unions.  As  the  result  of  an  investigation  to  ascertain  the  wages  of 
skilled  and  unskilled  women  workers,  made  in  1888  by  the  United  States 
Department  of  Labor,  it  was  found  that  in  twenty-two  cities  of  the  United 
States,  wages  of  women  varied  from  a  minimum  of  $4.05  a  week  in  Atlanta 
to  a  maximum  of  $6.91  in  San  Francisco,  the  average  wages  appearing 
to  be  less  than  $5.50  a  week.  Of  course,  in  some  instances  these  were  sup- 
plemental wages,  that  is,  wages  in  addition  to  those  earned  by  relatives, 
but,  in  most  cases,  they  were  the  sole  support  of  the  women,  often  even  of 
women  with  dependent  children.  Anyone  acquainted  with  the  cost  of  liv- 
ing in  large  cities  will  l>e  aware  that  these  wages  were  entirely  insufficient 
to  meet  the  cost  of  the  barest  necessaries  of  life.  That  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  girls  and  women  should  work  in  factories  for  ten  hours  a  day,  pos- 
sibly in  a  vitiated  atmosphere  and  at  depressing  labor,  and  earn  but  five  or 
six  dollars  a  week,  seems  hardly  credible  in  a  prosperous  and  civilized  com- 
munity. With  her  five  dollars  such  a  girl  could  not  live  even  a  plain,  mo- 
notonous life  under  conditions  that  would  maintain  her  elUkiency  as  a 
worker  and  as  a  citizen.  Five  dollars  a  week  means  less  than  a  proper 
amount  of  nourishing  food,  less  than  a  room  to  herself,  less  than  sufficient 
clothing  to  protect  her  from  the  wet  and  cold,  or  a  proper  change  of  cloth- 
ing when  it  is  warm.  Five  dollars  a  week  means  that  she  must  perhaps 
share  with  other  girls  a  small,  bare,  ill-lighted  room  in  some  tenement  in  a 
squalid  and  unclean  quarter  of  an  overcrowded  city.  It  means  food  often- 
times adulterated  and  at  l>est  ill-cooked  and  ill-served.  It  means  the  sacri- 
fice of  most  of  the  comforts  and  many  of  the  decencies  of  life.  And  when 
this  sum  is  meted  out,  not  to  the  girl  dependent  ui>on  herself,  but  to  the 
widow  with  children,  the  effect  is  utterly  crushing  and  annihilating. 

The  burden  of  our  civilization  bears  with  heaviest  weight  upon  the 
shoulders  of  women.  Through  constant  association  with  it.  we  have  be- 
come hardened  to  the  degrading  and  humiliating  truth  that  in  our  society, 


134  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

as  at  present  constituted,  hundreds  of  thousands,  if  not  millions,  of  girls, 
depending  exclusively  upon  their  own  resources,  are  compelled  to  work 
unduly  long  hours  for  a  beggarly  pittance.  The  temptations  besetting  a 
woman,  particularly  in  our  modern  industrial  life,  are  multiplied  a  hundred- 
fold in  the  case  of  these  shamefully  underpaid  workers.  There  is  no  ces- 
sation of  toil,  no  surcease  from  the  wearisome  round  of  exhausting  labor, 
no  pleasure  or  diversion  in  the  few  hours  of  leisure.  The  salient  fact  of 
present-day  existence,  not  only  in  our  large  cities,  but  in  small  towns  as  well, 
is  the  incentive  offered  to  all,  especially  to  young  people,  to  entertain  them- 
selves and  to  secure  a  modicum  of  the  attractions  everywhere  set  before 
their  eyes.  But  a  girl  earning  in  a  factory  or  store  the  sum  of  four  or  five 
dollars  a  week  must  resolutely  avert  her  gaze  from  all  that  is  pleasant  or  at- 
tractive in  life,  and  toil  on  without  the  prospect  or  hope  of  a  better  and 
fuller  existence. 

From  the  low  wages  which  are  now  paid  to  women  there  is  no  hope 
of  escape  through  the  benevolence  of  the  individual  employer.  To  a  cer- 
tain extent  the  employer  with  a  soul  can  improve  conditions  of  work  within 
his  establishment  and  even  increase  pay,  so  that  his  workwomen  may  enjoy 
a  little  more  comfort.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  employer 
who  pays  larger  wages  than  his  competitor  for  the  same  character  of  work 
is  at  a  certain  disadvantage,  and  the  wages  of  women  are,  as  a  consequence, 
regulated  by  those  which  the  most  grasping  competitor  gives  to  his  em- 
ployees. The  only  hope  of  a  permanent  increase  is  from  the  organization 
of  women  workers  into  trade  unions  and  the  attainment  and  maintenance 
through  their  efforts  of  a  higher  standard  of  life. 

Up  to  the  present  time,  women,  while  materially  benefiting  from  trade 
unions,  have  not  joined  in  as  large  numbers  as  they  might.  In  England, 
of  a  total  of  2,000,000  trade  unionists  there  are  only  120,000  female  mem- 
bers. In  Germany  the  percentage  is  still  less.  It  is  probable  that  a  slightly 
larger  percentage  of  women  are  enrolled  as  members  of  trade  unions  in  this 
country,  but  the  proportion  is  not  as  yet  what  it  should  be.  The  men  in 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  135 

the  various  industries  should  to  their  utmost  endeavor  to  secure  the  enroll- 
ment of  women  workers,  and  the  women  themselves  should  take  the  initia- 
tive in  this  movement. 

In  the  future  there  will  probably  be  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
women  trade  unionists.  At  the  present  time  women  are  largely  engaged 
in  trades  which  are  difficult  to  organize,  but  they  are  rapidly  joining  unions 
of  which  men  are  already  members,  and  are  also  organizing  into  separate 
bodies.  It  has  been  shown  in  the  few  organizations  of  wcmen  which  exist 
that  they  are  even  more  willing  to  make  sacrifices  for  a  cause  than  are  men, 
and  they  frequently  make  the  best  unionists. 

An  interesting  phase  of  the  changing  attitude  of  women  toward  unions 
is  revealed  by  the  action  of  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Teachers.  The 
teachers  of  Chicago,  recognizing  that  they  were  wage  earners  and  realizing 
the  similarity  of  their  aims  and  ideals  with  those  of  the  great  body  of  trade 
unionists,  threw  their  fortunes  in  with  their  fellow-workers  and  became 
affiliated  with  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor.  This  action  \\;is  repeated 
in  three  other  towns  and  is  doubtless  only  the  forerunner  of  a  general  move- 
ment of  school  teachers  to  the  ranks  of  organized  labor.  The  influence  for 
good  which  may  result  from  this  bond  1  jet  ween  the  working  j)eople  and  the 
teachers  of  their  children  can  now  be  only  faintly  forecasted. 

The  women  who  toil  in  this  country  are  beginning  to  recognize  clearly 
that  their  improved  conditions  are  due  in  large  part  to  the  action  of  trade 
unions.  The  trade  unions  have  always  stood  for  the  principle  of  equal  pay 
for  equal  work  irrespective  of  sex,  and  the  various  national  :md  local  unions, 
cooperating  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  have  done  all  in  their 
jxnver  to  aid  the  cause  of  woman.  The  success  of  the  lalx>r  organizations 
in  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  of  \\omen  has  l>cen  sho\\n  in  another  chap- 
ter, but  these  attempts  represent  only  a  j>ortion  of  the  work  which  has  IKXMI 
accomplished,  and  the  future  will  undoubtedly  show  a  vast  strengthening 
of  the  labor  movement  through  the  compact  organization  «>i'  the  \\<>inen  em- 
ployed in  American  industries. 


136  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

Even  more  important  than  the  benefits  conferred  by  trade  unionism 
upon  women  workers  have  been  its  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  toiling  children. 
The  employers  of  labor  have  drafted  into  their  service  not  only  masses  of 
newly  arrived  immigrants,  not  only  married  and  unmarried  women,  but 
also  children  of  a  tender  age.  Since  the  birth  of  the  factory  system,  chil- 
dren have  been  mustered  by  thousands  into  factories,  and  on  account  of 
their  nimbleness,  their  docility,  their  powerlessness  to  resist  oppression,  and 
the  low  wages  which  they  were  forced  to  accept,  have  been  permitted  to 
displace  men  and  to  ruin  themselves  by  work  unsuited  to  their  age  and 
strength.  This  has  also  occurred  in  the  anthracite  coal  regions,  where 
thousands  of  boys  are  employed  in  the  breakers. 

It  is  hard  to  reconcile  the  humanity  and  vaunted  intelligence  of  this  era 
with  the  wholesale  employment  of  children  in  industry.  Childhood  should 
be  a  period  of  growth  and  education.  It  should  be  the  stage  in  which  the 
man  is  trained  for  future  efforts  and  future  work.  With  each  advance  in 
civilization,  with  each  improvement  of  mankind,  the  period  of  childhood 
should  be  extended  in  order  that  the  men  and  women  of  the  next  generation 
shall  be  mature  and  developed. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  anything  more  fatuous,  anything  more 
utterly  absurd  and  immoral,  than  the  wholesale  employment  of  children  in 
industry.  Apart  from  the  particular  and  special  evils  of  the  system  as  it 
exists  to-day,  the  policy  of  extracting  work  from  children  and  exploiting 
their  slow-growing  strength  is  utterly  vicious  and  entirely  self-destructive. 
A  state  of  society  might  be  conceived  in  which  poverty  was  so  intense  that 
even  the  little  children  would  needs  be  drafted  into  the  industrial  army, 
in  order  to  produce  enough  to  enable  society  to  eke  out  its  existence.  But 
in  a  nation  which  has  its  millionaires,  almost  its  billionaires,  the  utter  in- 
humanity of  any  system  which  permits  the  exploitation  and  degradation  of 
children  is  horrible. 

Largely  through  the  influence  of  trade  unionism  and  through  the  grad- 
ual awakening  of  an  enlightened  sentiment  on  the  part  of  the  public,  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  137 

evils  of  child  labor  both  in  England  and  the  United  States  have  been  some- 
what ameliorated.  The  conditions  which  formerly  prevailed  in  England 
and  in  the  New  England  and  Middle  Atlantic  States  of  this  country  are 
now  no  longer  possible  in  any  civilized  community,  with  the  exception  of 
the  Southern  States.  Through  the  efforts  of  the  trade  unionists  and 
other  disinterested  and  public-spirited  men  and  women,  laws  have  been 
passed  in  the  various  states  restricting  the  evil  of  child  labor  and 
ameliorating  the  conditions  of  the  little  ones  in  the  mills,  mines,  and  fac- 
tories. This  legislation  has  usually  taken  the  form  of  laws  compelling 
school  attendance,  prohibiting  children's  work  before  a  certain  age,  limit- 
ing hours  of  labor  above  that  age,  obtaining  proper  conditions  for  children 
during  the  hours  of  their  employment,  and,  finally,  excluding  children  from 
certain  dangerous  and  unhealthy  occupations.  In  the  majority  of  the 
American  states,  laws  have  been  passed  compelling  children  to  attend  school 
until  their  tenth,  twelfth,  or  fourteenth  year,  but,  unfortunately,  these  laws 
are  not  always  rigidly  enforced,  and  the  school  term  is  not  invariably  as 
long  as  it  should  l>e.  The  laws  regulating  employment  usually  prescri!>c 
that  a  child  shall  not  l>c  employed  in  a  mine,  a  factory,  a  work  -shop,  or  any 
establishment  in  which  the  manufacture  of  goods  is  carried  on,  IxMow  a  min- 
imum age,  ordinarily  fixed  at  ten,  twelve,  thirteen,  fourteen,  or  sixteen 
years,  the  average  l)eing  probably  alxnit  twelve  or  thirteen  years.  Even 
alx>ve  this  age  it  is  usually  provided  that  a  child  shall  not  work  for  more 
than  eight,  nine,  or  ten  hours,  and  provision  is  made  for  the  ]x>sting  of 
notices  definitely  stating  the  hours  of  beginning  and  ending  work,  and  the 
times  for  meals.  In  various  states  the  employment  of  children  has  been 
entirely  prohibited  in  some  occupations,  and  in  certain  states  it  is  legally 
forbidden  to  inflict  cor|x>ral  punishment  ni>on  the  child. 

Important,  however,  as  has  been  the  work  of  trade  unions  in  this  direc- 
tion, there  still  remains  much  to  be  done.  Even  at  the  present  time,  there 
are  over  168,000  children  employed  in  the  manufacturing  industries  of  the 
country,  and  there  are  many  thousands  more  engaged  in  mines,  shops, 


138  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

and  mercantile  establishments,  and  at  work  in  the  streets  of  the  cities- 
A  third  of  the  children  engage  at  manufacturing  are  employed  in  the 
cotton  industry,  but  many  more  are  employed  in  tobacco  factories,  in 
the  manufacture  of  cigars,  paper  boxes,  picture  frames,  furniture,  feathers, 
neck-ties,  artificial  flowers,  and  boots  and  shoes.  Although  the  age  at  which 
children  may  begin  to  work  is  gradually  being  raised,  the  factories  in  the 
Southern  States  still  employ  children  of  ten  and  even  of  eight  and  seven 
years.  By  means  of  trade  union  activity,  the  number  of  children  engaged 
in  manufacturing  in  the  Northern  States  of  the  Union  has  gradually  been 
reduced,  and  the  total  so  engaged  throughout  the  country  appears  to  have 
been  less' in  1900  than  in  1880.  But  the  labor  force  of  the  cotton  and  to- 
bacco factories  of  the  South  is  being  constantly  recruited  from  the  small 
children  of  those  regions,  and  exploitation  there  is  practically  unrestricted. 
The  character  of  some  of  these  mills,  operating  at  enormous  profits  and 
building  upon  the  unmerciful  exploitation  of  children,  beggars  description. 
The  children  are  subjected  to  the  harshest  and  most  brutal  tyranny,  are 
compelled  to  overstrain  and  overexert  themselves,  and  to  wear  out  their 
young  lives  in  the  eternal  struggle  to  keep  up  with  the  machine. 

The  effect  of  this  employment  of  child  labor  is  not  only  to  reduce  wages 
of  adult  workers,  but  absolutely  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  the  children 
themselves  growing  into  sane  and  healthy  adults.  Miss  Jane  Addams,  of 
Hull  House  in  Chicago,  has  pointed  out  the  intimate  connection  between 
exploited  child  labor  and  vagrancy.  Thousands  of  men  who  tramp  about 
the  country  and  live  off  society,  instead  of  for  it,  are  the  product  of  a  system 
of  unregulated  child  labor.  In  the  factory  the  spring  of  the  child's  life 
snaps  and  his  spirit  is  completely  broken.  The  outlook  upon  life  of  a  child 
of  twelve  or  fourteen,  emerging  illiterate  and  listless  from  five  or  six  years 
of  work  at  deadening,  monotonous  labor  is  hopelessly  blank,  and  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at  that  many  children  with  such  a  past  develop  into  tramps 
and  criminals.  The  constant  throwing  off  of  these  worn  out,  prematurely 
aged  children  is  a  terrible  indictment  against  a  society  claiming  to  be  civi- 
lized. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  139 

There  is  no  hope  for  the  poor  children  of  the  South,  except  the  possi- 
bility of  succor  from  trade  unions.  While  the  sentiment  of  the  entire  coun- 
try is  one  of  righteous  indignation  against  the  cold-blooded,  money-seeking 
owners  of  Southern  cotton  and  tobacco  mills,  it  needs  the  constant  stimulus 
of  a  strong  union  movement  to  crystallize  this  sentiment  and  render  it  effec- 
tive. Many  of  the  owners  of  these  mills,  drawing  their  dividends 
from  an  anonymous  company,  are  growing  rich  upoii  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
thousands  of  emaciated  wretches,  whom  they  have  never  seen.  The  senti- 
ment of  the  community  should  be  directed  against  these  persons  as  indi- 
viduals as  well  as  against  the  industries  they  rq^resent,  and  a  concentrated 
effort  should  be  made  so  to  educate  the  legislators  of  the  states  that  they 
will  assume  a  virtue  if  they  have  it  not,  and  in  spite  of  their  own  selfish  ends 
and  aims  legislate  for  the  protection  of  these  children. 

I  wish,  even  at  the  risk  of  tiresome  repetition,  to  insist  upon  the  abso- 
lute wastefulness  and  the  utter  depravity  of  this  system  of  child  labor. 
There  is  no  need  to  search  for  extreme  and  exceptional  instances  of  hard- 
ship. The  ordinary  life  of  the  ordinary  child  in  the  factory  run  tinder  or- 
dinary and  usual  conditions  is  such  as  no  society  should  j)ermit.  It  is 
a  well-known  fact  that  children  in  mines  and  factories  are  much  more 
exj>osed  to  accidents  than  are  adults,  capable  of  avoiding  recognized  dan- 
gers. They  are  also  more  liable  to  disease,  more  liable  to  the  poisoning 
and  infection  of  their  young  Ixjdies.  more  liable  to  premature  death  or  com- 
plete disability.  The  utter  ruinousness  of  this  parasitic  exploitation  of  chil- 
dren before  the}-  can  arrive  at  strength  or  maturity  should  animate  states- 
men to  legislate  against  this  alx)mi nation  and  destroy  it  root  and  branch. 
We  are  daily  seeing  the  s|>ectaclc  of  children  takcMi  out  of  school  and  thrust 
into  factories,  with  the  result  that  a  few  years  of  ineffectual  work  are  added 
and  a  great  many  years  of  productive  and  effective  lalxir  arc  lost.  If  the 
whole  community  were  enslaved  to  a  single  lord  who  cared  not  for  the  hap- 
piness of  his  subjects,  but  wished  merely  to  increase  his  own  wealth,  ho 
would  not  do  as  we  do  now --exploit  the  lalx>r  of  little  children;  he  \fould 


140  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

prohibit  their  employment  until  such  time  as  they  were  enabled  to  perform 
the  greatest  amount  of  work  throughout  their  lives.  The  policy  of  render- 
ing men  unfit  for  work  by  squeezing  out  of  them  the  last  iota  of  strength 
when  they  are  children,  is  an  extreme  case  of  slaying  the  goose  that  lays 
the  golden  eggs. 

In  its  attempts  to  ameliorate  the  conditions  brought  about  by  this  cruel 
exploitation  of  child  labor,  trade  unionism  has  met  with  opposition  not 
only  from  the  more  unscrupulous  manufacturers,  but  also  from  the  less  in- 
telligent workmen.  It  is  unfortunately  a  fact  that  many  workmen  and 
even  a  few  trade  unionists  are  still  so  ignorant  that  they  do  not  perceive 
that  a  prohibition  of  child  labor  will  improve  their  own  condition,  as  well 
as  save  their  children  from  a  useless,  if  not  a  vicious,  life.  The  father  of  a 
family  sees  only  the  two,  three,  or  four  dollars  which  his  little  boy  or  girl 
brings  home,  and  fails  to  see  that  these  same  dollars  are  taken  from  his  own 
wages  by  the  employment  of  his  children.  It  is  a  fact  proved  over  and  over 
again  that  the  wages  of  men  whose  children  are  not  employed  are  greater 
than  the  total  wages  of  the  families  of  men  who  permit  their  children  to 
work.  The  investigation  of  various  bureaus  of  labor  throughout  the 
United  States  have  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  entire  wages  of  working- 
men's  children,  and  even  more  than  this  amount,  are  deducted  from  the 
wages  of  the  workingmen  themselves.  This  is  indisputable,  but  even  if  it 
were  not,  the  workingmen  of  the  country  should  be — and  in  the  majority 
of  cases  are — above  the  temptation  to  obtain  a  temporary  increase  in  the 
income  of  their  families  by  means  of  the  sacrifice  of  their  own  flesh  and 
blood. 

The  trade  unions  of  this  country  should  stand  for  education  laws  in 
the  various  states,  compelling  all  children  below  the  age  of  sixteen  to  attend 
school  for  the  full  term.  They  should  also  insist  upon  the  enactment  of 
laws  establishing  a  minimum  age  of  sixteen  years  below  which  children 
might  not  work  in  mills,  mines,  factories,  or  mercantile  establishments. 
These  laws  should  be  rigidly,  strictly,  and  equably  enforced,  and  the  various 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  141 

evasions  due  to  the  deliberate  perjury  of  parents  and  employers  should  be 
guarded  against.  Provision,  I  believe,  should  be  made  for  cases  in  which 
such  a  prohibition  of  child  labor  would  work  undue  and  exceptional  hard- 
ship, but  these  regulations  should  be  of  such  a  nature  that  no  favoritism 
could  result  and  that  no  large  body  of  children  could  be  employed.  There 
are  a  few  cases,  amounting,  perhaps,  to  two  or  three  per  cent,  of  the  chil- 
dren drafted  into  factories  and  mines,  in  which  the  establishment  of  a  mini- 
mum age  of  sixteen  might  work  needless  hardship,  but,  as  has  been  shown 
by  the  laws  of  several  states,  these  cases  may  be  provided  for  without  open- 
ing the  door  to  numerous  evasions  and  to  the  practical  nullification  of  the 
law. 

Whatever  the  specific  measure  taken  by  trade  unions,  their  policy  must 
always  be  based  upon  the  fixed  determination  to  keep  children  out  of  the 
factory  and  the  mine.  The  prosperity,  the  very  existence,  of  our  civiliza- 
tion depends  upon  the  safeguarding  and  protection  of  the  child,  depends 
iijx>n  the  immunity  of  the  weak  from  the  oppression  and  aggression  of  the 
strong  and  unscrupulous.  No  trade  unionist  is  loyal  to  his  cause,  who  is 
not  solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  the  least  of  the  little  children  in  industry, 
and  no  permanent  progress  can  be  attained  until  all  workmen  and  all  well- 
intentioned  members  of  society  are  united  in  a  determined  effort  to  protect 
children  and  to  guarantee  to  them  a  happy,  healthy,  and  useful  existence. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
THE  DEATH  ROLL  OF  INDUSTRY 

The  Perils  of  Peace.  Accidents  Increase  with  Industry.  The  Killing,  Maiming,  and 
Poisoning  of  Workingmen.  Accidents  Inevitable  and  Preventable.  Trade  Unions  and 
the  Health  and  Safety  of  the  Workingman.  Public  Opinion  Favors  Factory  Legisla- 
tion. Factory  Legislation  in  England  and  the  United  States.  The  Ounce  of  Preven- 
tion and  the  Pound  of  Cure.  Liability  of  Employers  for  Accidents.  The  Doctrine  of 
Common  Employment.  Its  Injustice.  Employers'  Liability  Laws.  Cheaper  to  Kill 
than  to  Save.  The  Killing  of  Workingmen  not  a  Matter  of  Private  Agreement.  An 
Argument  for  Trade  Unionism. 

'"PHE  bread  of  the  laborer  is  eaten  in  the  peril  of  his  life.  Whether  he 
work  on  the  sea,  on  the  earth,  or  in  the  mines  underneath  the  earth, 
the  laborer  constantly  faces  imminent  death.  His  peril  increases  with  the 
progress  of  the  age.  With  each  new  invention  the  number  of  killed  and 
injured  rises;  each  increase  in  the  number  and  size  of  our  great  engines, 
each  new  speeding  up  of  the  great  mechanisms  of  industrial  life  brings  with 
it  fresh  human  sacrifices. 

The  victories  of  peace  have  their  price  in  dead  and  maimed  as  well  as 
the  victories  of  war.  As  the  intensity  of  life  increases,  as  the  hold  of 
the  weaker  becomes  feebler,  as  the  struggle  for  existence  grows  ever  sharper, 
so  the  peril  to  the  life  and  limb  of  the  worker  is  enhanced  with  every  mechan- 
ical advance.  The  stage  coach  was  more  dangerous  to  the  individual  pas- 
senger than  is  the  railroad;  but  where  the  stage  coach  slew  its  thousands, 
the  railroad  has  slain  its  tens  of  thousands.  Each  year  the  locomotive  in- 
creases the  number  of  its  victims,  each  year  the  factories  maim  more  and 
kill  more,  each  year  lengthens  the  tale  of  miners  who  go  down  into  the  mines 
and  do  not  come  up  again. 

The  death  roll  of  industry  is  longer  than  is  evident  from  official  figures. 
Many  are  killed  without  violence.  Thousands  of  men,  women  and  children 

(142) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  143 

lose  their  lives  in  factories  and  mills  without  the  inquest  of  a  coroner.  The 
slo\v  death  which  comes  from  working  in  a  vitiated  atmosphere,  from  in- 
haling constantly  the  fine,  sharp  dust  of  metals,  from  laboring  unceasingly 
in  constrained  and  unnatural  postures,  from  constant  contact  of  the  hands 
or  lips  with  poisonous  substances,  lastly,  the  death  that  cornes  from  pro- 
longed exposure  to  inclement  weather,  from  overexertion  and  undermitri- 
tion,  from  lack  of  sleep,  from  lack  of  recuperation,  swells  beyond  computa- 
tion the  unnumbered  victims  of  a  restless  progress. 

However  sure  the  precautions,  however  perfect  the  arrangements,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  the  gigantic  industrial  movements  of  the  American  peo- 
ple could  be  conducted  without  some  fatalities.  No  movement  of  an  army, 
no  great  parade,  no  celebration,  hardly  a  picnic,  without  attendant  danger 
of  life  lost  or  mangled  limb.  The  industrial  structure  is  a  huge  machine, 
hard-running,  and  with  many  unguarded  parts.  It  would  not  be  possible 
to  conduct  our  railroads  without  a  single  accident,  and  many  of  the  fatalities 
in  industry,  as  many  deaths  in  general,  are  simply  and  solely  the  result  of 
"an  act  of  God/'  inseparable  from  the  ordinary  course  of  existence. 

While,  thus,  some  fatalities  of  our  industrial  life  are  inevitable,  while 
many  are  maimed,  many  sickened,  many  poisoned  because  of  conditions  l>e- 
yond  the  reasonable  power  or  control  of  employers  or  of  the  state,  yet  there 
is  no  doubt  that  a  vast  amount  of  entirely  unnecessary  and  easily  avoidable 
injury  is  inflicted  upon  workingmen.  The  evil  is  at  present  greater  in  vol- 
ume and  extent,  although  less  in  intensity,  than  in  the  early  days  of  the  fac- 
tory system.  When  steam  !>egan  its  triumphant  march  through  the  indus- 
tries of  the  world  and  production  on  a  large  scale  drove  the  small  work- 
shops into  backward  villages,  the  fate  of  the  wage  earner  was  put  in  the 
hands  of  men  concerned  singly  with  the  ideal  of  money  getting.  The  strug- 
gle of  competition  drove  each  employer  to  speed  up  his  machines,  to  drive 
his  workmen,  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  increase  output  and  reduce  cxjxmses. 
Machinery  left  un fenced  was  frequently  tended  by  small  children,  whom  it 
seized  and  mangled  like  some  huge,  malicious  monster.  The  sanitary  con- 


144  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ditions  of  the  factories  and  workshops  of  the  day  were  indescribably  had, 
and  women  and  children  as  well  as  men  were  exposed  to  all  the  maladies 
\\  hich  excessive  work  with  noxious  materials  under  unspeakably  unsanitary 
conditions  would  produce. 

The  task  of  converting  the  factories  of  civilized  nations  from  noisy, 
whirling  dungeons  into  the  better,  cleaner,  and  more  sanitary  workshops  of 
to-day  fell  to  the  lot  of  organized  labor.  For  a  time,  it  is  true,  the  impetus 
to  reform  came  largely  from  other  classes  in  society,  but  as  soon  as  trade 
unions  became  strong  enough  to  take  up  the  task,  they  prosecuted  it  with 
vigor  and  in  many  industries  carried  it  to  a  successful  issue.  Both  in  Eng- 
land and  in  the  various  states  of  this  country,  the  unions  have  had  more 
success  in  obtaining  from  the  government  legislation  regulating  sanitary 
conditions  than  in  any  attempt  to  reduce  by  law  the  hours  of  work.  The 
law  has  not  permitted  the  fixing  of  a  standard  of  wages  either  in  the  United 
States  or  in  England,  and  with  the  exception  of  a  few  trades  and  barring 
one  or  two  recent  decisions,  no  legislation  regulating  the  hours  of  labor 
of  adult  male  workers  has  been  held  constitutional.  From  the  first,  how- 
ever, public  sympathy  has  been  with  the  workingmen  in  their  attempt  to 
make  their  working  places  less  dangerous  to  life,  limb,  and  health.  It  was 
clearly  seen  that  the  individual,  unorganized  workingman  could  not  in  his 
wage  contract  or  otherwise,  regulate  the  condition  in  which  the  factory  of 
his  employer  was  to  be  kept,  and  that  in  order  to  secure  reforms  of  this  sort, 
recourse  must  necessarily  be  had  to  legislation  or  to  the  direct  negotiation 
of  a  trade  union.  The  public  also  perceived  that  for  the  preservation  of  its 
own  health  and  strength,  improvement  in  the  sanitary  conditions  of  wrork 
was  indispensable.  It  was  feared  that  by  permitting  the  working  places 
of  the  people  to  become  pests,  the  door  would  be  open  to  infectious  diseases 
of  all  kinds,  resulting  in  ultimate  injury  to  all  classes  of  society. 

Even  in  England  no  general  attempt  was  made  on  the  part  of  trade 
unions  much  before  1840  to  better  the  sanitary  conditions  of  workshops, 
and  it  was  not  until  about  thirty  years  ago  that  this  became  universally  a 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  145 

part  of  the  settled  policy  of  trade  unions.  The  argument  occasionally  raised 
against  insurance,  that  it  is  impious,  seemed  also  to  apply  to  attempts  to 
regulate  the  conditions  of  work,  since  the  sickness  of  workmen  or  their 
death  from  accident  was  attributed  to  the  "act  of  God,"  rather  than  to  un- 
sanitary or  dangerous  conditions.  The  political  economists,  who  at  this 
time  were  all  arrayed  upon  the  side  of  the  capitalists,  stated  that  the  more 
dangerous  and  unsanitary  the  conditions  of  work,  the  higher  the  remunera- 
tion, and,  therefore,  any  attempt  to  improve  the  sanitary  conditions  of  work 
would  attract  new  workmen  and  would  consequently  lower  wages. 

Notwithstanding  all  arguments  to  the  contrary,  the  desire  for  reform 
grew  rapidly,  as  the  effect  of  unsanitary  work  became  more  clear.  It  was  soon 
seen  that  many  of  the  accidents  and  much  of  the  disease  incidental  to  various 
occupations  were  avoidable,  and  it  also  became  recognized  by  the  working- 
men  that  the  effect  of  dangerous  and  unsanitary  labor  was  not  to  increase 
wages,  but  merely  to  degrade  the  workers  compelled  to  perform  tasks  of 
that  nature.  The  effect  of  improving  the  sanitary  conditions  of  work  has 
not  been,  as  was  anticipated,  a  decrease  in  the  wages  of  the  men  performing 
the  safer  work,  but  has  been,  rather,  an  increase  in  the  efficiency  of  the 
workers  and  an  improvement  in  their  general  character  and  calibre. 

Gradually,  in  England  and  in  this  country,  the  legislatures  passed  laws 
providing  for  a  number  of  reforms  tending  to  make  the  conditions  of  work 
more  healthful,  safe,  and  comfortable.  These  acts  varied  with  the  nature  of 
each  industry  and  have  teen  more  or  less  sweeping  and  more  or  less  rigidly 
enforced  in  various  industries  and  in  various  states.  The  factory  laws 
passed  by  the  legislatures  of  American  states  have  generally  Ixicn  justified 
and  declared  constitutional  as  coming  under  the  ix>lice  jKwer  of  the  state. 

Factory  legislation  has  l>ecn  so  wide  in  extent  and  manifold  in  character 
that  it  would  be  ini|>ossible  in  a  book  of  this  si/c  to  consider  it  in  detail.  In 
his  Handlxjok  to  the  I^il)or  Law  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  V.  ].  Sliinson 
has  thus  summarized  the  principal  classes  of  laws  of  this  sort  passed  by  the 
American  states:  "Statutes  providing  for  the  preservation  of  the  health  of 
10 


146  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

employees  in  factories  by  the  removal  of  excessive  dust,  or  for  securing  pure 
air,  or  requiring  fans  or  other  special  devices  to  remove  noxious  dust  or 
vapors  peculiar  to  the  trade;  statutes  requiring  guards  to  be  placed  about 
dangerous  machinery,  belting,  elevators,  wells,  air-shafts,  etc. ;  statutes  pro- 
viding for  fire-escapes,  adequate  staircases  with  rails,  rubber  treads,  etc. ; 
door  opening  outward,  etc. ;  statutes  providing  against  injury  to  the  opera- 
tives by  the  machinery  used,  such  as  laws  prohibiting  the  machinery  to  be 
cleaned  while  in  motion,  or  from  being  cleaned  by  any  woman  or  minor; 
laws  requiring  mechanical  belt  shifters,  etc.,  or  connection  by  bells,  tubes, etc., 
between  any  room  where  machinery  is  used  and  the  engine  room ;  laws  aimed 
at  overcrowding  in  factories,  and  at  the  general  comfort  of  the  operatives ; 
and  many  special  laws  in  railways,  mines,  and  other  special  occupations, 
such  as  the  laws  requiring  warning  guards  to  be  placed  before  bridges  upon 
railroads,  requiring  the  frogs  and  switches  or  other  appliances  of  the  track 
to  be  in  good  condition  and  properly  protected  by  timber  or  otherwise,  pro- 
viding automatic  couplings  to  both  freight  and  passenger  trains,  and,  in 
building  trades,  providing  for  railings  upon  scaffolds  and  for  suitable  scaf- 
folds generally. 

"There  are  most  elaborate  statutes  and  several  constitutional  provisions 
regulating  the  conduct  of  mining  industries,-  the  condition  of  mines,  the  use 
of  safety  cages,  etc.,  in  the  states  where  the  mining  industry  predominates. 

"Both  manufactories  and  mines  are,  in  nearly  all  these  states,  submitted 
to  some  kind  of  public  inspection  to  see  that  these  regulations  are  in  force, 
and  in  many  states  there  are  special  inspectors  appointed  for  the  purpose; 
in  others  the  matter  is  left  to  the  state  labor  bureaus,  the  board  of  health, 
the  local  authorities,  or  the  chief  of  police.  An  appeal  from  their  decisions 
or  orders  may  be  taken  to  the  courts." 

The  most  usual,  direct,  and  efficacious  manner  of  protecting  the  life, 
limb,  and  health  of  the  worker  is  by  legally  compelling  the  employer  to  do 
or  refrain  from  doing  certain  things  and  to  appoint  inspectors  to  see  that 
these  things  are  done  or  omitted.  Thus,  to  prevent  men  from  being  need- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  147 

lessly  killed  in  coupling  cars,  the  easiest  and  best  method  is  to  compel  the 
railroads  to  provide  automatic  couplers  and  to  punish  by  fine,  imprisonment, 
or  otherwise  any  refusal  to  comply  with  this  regulation.  To  prevent  men 
from  being  needlessly  mangled  by  machinery,  it  is  only  necessary  to  compel 
by  law  the  fencing  of  such  machines  and  to  appoint  inspectors  to  see  that 
the  fencing  is  properly  done.  This  has  been  the  method  usually  adopted 
in  the  factory  and  mining  laws  of  many  nations  and  of  the  various  states  of 
this  country.  Xew  York  and  Massachusetts  have  been  especially  energetic 
in  passing  good  laws  and  securing  their  enforcement.  Where  it  has  been 
found  difficult,  however,  to  obtain  the  enactment  or  effective  enforcement  of 
factory  laws,  attempts  have  been  made  to  protect  the  lives  of  the  workmen 
indirectly,  by  making  the  killing  of  employees  too  expensive  a  pastime.  This 
has  been  accomplished  in  England  by  the  passage  of  a  compulsory  insurance 
law,  and  in  France,  Germany,  Austria,  Italy,  and  a  number  of  other  Con- 
tinental countries,  provision  is  made  for  compulsory  compensation  of  in- 
jured employees.  A  necessity  for  some  form  of  compensation  undoubtedly 
exists  in  the  United  States,  owing  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  law  in  this 
regard. 

Under  the  common  law  of  England  and  of  the  United  States,  an  em- 
ployer is  responsible  for  the  action  of  his  workmen  in  the  course  of  their  em- 
ployment, very  much  as  a  principal  is  responsible  for  the  actions  of  his 
agents.  However,  in  the  celebrated  case  of  Priestley  i's.  Eowler,  decided 
in  1837,  the  law  was  laid  down  by  a  certain  learned  judge  that  a  ser- 
vant could  not  recover  from  his  master  when  the  injury  was  due  to  the  neg- 
ligence of  a  fellow  servant ;  and  this  decision  has  become  imbedded  in  Eng- 
lish law  through  a  succession  of  judgments  adverse  to  injured  workingmen. 
Even  at  that  time  the  decision  was  unjust,  but  with  every  advance  in  indus- 
trial development,  it  has  become  more  grievous.  When  two  journeymen 
car|>enters  were  working  on  the  same  job  with  their  employer,  it  might  or 
might  not  IK-  just  to  relieve  the  employer  <>f  responsibility  f;>r  injury  in- 
Ilicted  in  the  course  of  employment  by  one  workingman  np«ni  the  other; 


148  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

but  at  the  present  time  the  distinction  is  utterly  vicious.  Under  the  law 
as  it  exists  to-day,  where  not  modified  by  statute,  all  the  passengers  in 
a  train  may  recover  for  an  accident  due  to  the  carelessness  of  a  switchman 
or  the  negligence  of  a  telegraph  operator,  except  only  the  engineer,  fireman, 
brakeman,  and  conductor,  though  killed  in  the  performance  of  their  duty 
and  without  any  contributory  negligence.  No  matter  though  the  person 
guilty  of  negligence  has  never  been  seen  or  heard  of  by  the  injured  work- 
man, no  matter  though  he  serves  in  a  different  department  or  in  a  different 
country,  no  matter  though  he  is  the  workman's  superior  and  capable  of  giv- 
ing him  orders,  there  is  still  no  possibility  of  recovering,  because  all  are  cov- 
ered by  the  blanket  of  common  service.  In  the  large  industrial  establish- 
ments of  to-day,  employing  thousands  of  workingmen,  one  hand  cannot 
know  what  the  other  hand  doeth ;  yet,  as  the  law  stands  in  most  American 
states  and  as  it  stood  in  England  until  recently,  no  workingman  can  recover 
damages  for  injury  inflicted  upon  him  by  any  one  of  five,  ten,  twenty,  or 
fifty  thousand  fellow-servants.  The  employer  is,  of  course,  responsible  for 
his  own  individual  carelessness  or  malice,  but  in  the  huge,  anonymous  cor- 
porations of  to-day,  such  as  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  and  the  Standard 
Oil  Company,  who  is  the  employer? 

About  thirty  years  ago,  the  trade  unionists  of  Great  Britain,  especially 
the  coal  miners  and  railway  employees,  despairing  of  the  enactment  and  rigid 
enforcement  of  laws  safeguarding  the  workingman,  determined  to*  remedy 
the  employers'  liability  law  and  to  mulct  the  companies  in  damages  for  in- 
juries to  their  workmen.  After  much  agitation,  they  secured,  in  1880,  the 
passage  of  an  employers'  liability  law,  making  the  employer  in  certain  indus- 
tries responsible  for  injuries  to  workmen  when  the  accident  was  due  to  the 
negligence  of  superintendents,  managers,  foremen,  or  through  obedience  to 
improper  rules  or  orders.  Within  two  years,  however,  the  decisions  of  the 
court  rendered  the  law  nugatory  by  allowing  the  employers  to  ''contract 
out."  By  these  decisions,  it  was  held  that  if  a  workman  received  notice 
that  he  must  forego  his  rights  under  the  act  and  accept  instead  a  claim  to 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  149 

a  benefit  club  established  by  the  employer  (to  which  the  workman  himself 
was  obliged  to  contribute  largely),  he  was  held  to  have  entered  into  a  valid 
contract  to  surrender  his  rights.  In  1897,  however,  the  act  was  widely 
extended  and  compelled  employers  in  the  trades  affected,  including  about 
one-third  of  all  British  workmen,  to  compensate  their  workmen  for  all  in- 
juries suffered  in  the  course  of  their  employment,  whether  caused  by  negli- 
gence or  not. 

This  legislation,  however,  while  extremely  beneficial  to  the  employee, 
has  not  been  successful  in  compassing  its  original  object.  It  is  unfor- 
tunately true  of  modern  industrial  life  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  it  is 
cheaper  to  kill  men  and  pay  for  them  than  to  go  to  the  expense  of  mak- 
ing suitable  provision  for  preventing  accidents.  It  is  useless  for  trade 
unionists  to  slvut  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  an  employer,  if  unscrupulous, 
will  pay  occasional  damages  for  employees  who  are  killed  and  injured,  if 
compelled  to  do  so  by  law,  rather  than  take  the  expensive  precautions  neces- 
sary for  preventing  the  accident.  The  employer  can  and  does  insure  him- 
self against  accidents  to  his  workingmen  and  thus  finds  it  cheaper,  if  less 
humane,  to  kill  than  to  save.  In  the  matter  of  accidents,  it  not  infrequently 
happens  that  an  ounce  of  prevention  costs  more  than  a  pound  of  cure. 

But  what  the  workingmen  desire  and  demand  is  not  so  much  compen- 
sation for  injury  as  prevention  of  injury.  The  workingman  who.  through 
no  fault  of  his  own,  is  killed  or  maimed  or  i>ennanently  disabled  in  an  in- 
dustry should  receive  from  that  industry  or  from  the  state,  either  directly  or 
through  his  heirs,  a  suitable  compensation,  whether  the  injury  is  due  to  the 
negligence  of  the  employer  or  not.  It  is  inhuman  to  permit  disabled  work- 
ingmen to  starve,  it  is  inhuman  to  j>ennit  widows  and  orphans  of  men  who 
have  died  in  the  j>erformancc  of  their  duty  to  IK?  left  without  suitable  pro- 
vision for  their  future  maintenance.  The  workman,  however,  demands 
even  more  strenuously  and  justly  that  all  jx>ssil>le  measures  he  taken  to  pre- 
vent accidents.  It  is  \\ell  to  receive  a  thousand  dollars  for  the  l»ss  ot  an 
eye  or  a  leg,  but  it  is  better  by  far  for  the  man,  as  for  society,  that  the  eye 


1-50  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

and  the  leg  be  not  lost.  As  Frank  P.  Sargent,  U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Im- 
migration, says,  "We  would  prefer  to  prevent  the  injuries  rather  than  t® 
secure  indemnity  therefor."  The  trade  unions  must  continue  by  agitation 
and  education,  by  appeals  to  legislatures,  and,  if  necessary,  by  strikes,  to 
enable  good  and  compel  bad  employers  to  do  everything  within  their  power 
to  lengthen  the  life  and  maintain  the  health  of  their  workers. 

In  the  matter  of  the  health  and  safety  of  the  workingman,  society  has 
not  yet  learned  its  full  lesson.  There  was  a  time  when  the  criminal  law  was 
a  matter  of  private  settlement,  and  a  man  could  relieve  himself  of  responsi- 
bility for  the  murder  of  his  neighbor  by  making  a  blood  payment  of  so 
much  money  to  the  kinsmen  of  the  murdered  man.  Our  attitude  toward 
preventable  accidents  is  still  much  the  same.  If  the  employer  pays  a  ludic- 
rously inadequate  sum  to  his  injured  employees  or  to  the  wiclovv  of  a  work- 
man who  has  been  killed,  society  assumes  that  he  has  performed  his  full  duty 
and  that  his  concern  in  the  matter  has  ceased.  The  commission  or  permis- 
sion of  preventable  accidents  should  be  considered  a  public  crime,  an  injury 
not  only  to  the  workingman  but  to  society  at  large.  The  factory  laws  of 
all  states,  which  at  the  present  time  are  frequently  inadequate  and  sometimes 
remain  a  dead  letter  upon  the  statute  book,  should  be  greatly  extended  and 
should  be  enforced  with  the  utmost  rigor ;  and  when  men  are  killed  or 
maimed  or  injured  on  railroads,  in  factories,  or  in  mines  through  a  violation 
of  the  plain  letter  of  the  law,  as  frequently  happens  at  the  present  day,  the 
employer  should  not  only  suffer  in  pecuniary  damages,  but  should  be  liable 
to  prosecution  for  a  penal  offense.  No  country,  however  powerful  or  for- 
midable, can  be  considered  truly  great  which  does  not  hold  important  the 
life  and  happiness  of  its  citizens,  even  if  they  be  the  humblest  of  untrained 
workingmen  or  the  least  of  the  little  children  in  the  factories. 

There  is  nothing  which  so  justifies  the  existence  of  trade  unions  as  the 
work  which  they  have  done  and  are  still  doing  in  improving  the  sanitary  con- 
ditions of  the  workingmen  and  saving  them  from  premature  or  violent  death. 
The  solution  of  these  problems  in  so  far  as  the  state  does  not  take  the  direct 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  151 

initiative  can  be  left  to  no  one  but  the  organizations  of  labor.  The  indi- 
vidual workingman  cannot  regulate  the  conditions  of  his  work.  The  tex- 
tile workers  of  the  United  States,  if  organized  into  one  vast,  all-comprising 
union,  could  enforce  proper  sanitary  conditions  in  all  the  textile  mills ;  but 
a  single  weaver  or  spinner  would  be  utterly  unable  to  make  any  impression 
whatsoever.  A  weaver  who  offered  to  work  only  on  condition  that  all  the 
machinery  of  the  mill  be  fenced,  that  the  temperature  of  the  rooms  be  not 
above  a  certain  maximum,  that  such  and  such  sanitary  conditions  be  main- 
tained, would  find  that  his  prospective  employer  would  be  able  and  willing 
to  do  without  his  services.  No  single  workingman  could  determine  upon, 
even  if  he  could  enforce,  the  hundreds  of  reasonable  conditions  which  enter 
into  our  factory  or  mining  laws  or  into  the  shop  rules  incorporated  in  trade 
agreements..  The  shop  and  mining  rules  agreed  upon  in  conference  be- 
tween employers  and  unions  are,  in  many  instances,  absolutely  essential  to 
the  health  and  even  to  the  life  of  the  workingman,  and  these  rules  require 
united  action  on  the  part  of  all  workingmcn.  It  would  be  impossible  for  the 
employer  to  treat  with  each  workingman  as  to  what  shop  or  mine  rules  lie 
\\ould  be  willing  to  accept,  however  possible  such  an  individual  agreement 
might  be  in  the  case  of  wages.  The  rules  relating  to  sanitation  and  safety 
arc  common,  general  rules,  and  serve  to  demonstrate  clearly  that  the  \vork- 
ingmen  in  a  factory  or  in  an  industry  are  not  to  be  considered  as  individual 
men  contracting  separately,  but  as  members  of  one  united  group. 

Kvcn  if  it  were  jK)ssible  for  the  individual  workingman  to  contract 
ujx)!!  the  matter  of  safety  and  health,  it  would  IK  contrary  to  public  policy 
and  public  welfare  to  |>cnnit  him  to  do  so.  The  state  refuses  t<>  allow  a  man 
to  sell  himself  into  slavery,  even  though  he  is  an  adult,  in  full  ]>osscssi<>n 
of  his  faculties  and  not  acting  under  duress.  The  law  also  refuses  to  per- 
mit a  man  to  make  any  contract  by  which  he  will  maim  himself  or  allow 
himself  to  lie  maimed.  If.  however,  the  law  is  to  permit  a  man  t«>  accept 
any  risks  of  employment  which  his  employer  is  willing  to  force  UJHMI  him, 
the  position  of  the  workingman  so  contracting  is  practically  identical  with 


I$2  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

that  of  a  man  selling  himself  into  slavery  or  offering  for  a  consideration  to 
kill  or  maim  himself.  If  it  is  against  public  policy  to  permit  a  brakeman 
by  private  agreement  to  relieve  a  railroad  company  of  the  obligation  to  use 
automatic  couplers,  then  it  should  also  be  against  public  policy  to  allow  an 
individual  workingman  to  relieve  the  employer  of  the  obligation  to  take 
such  precautions  for  the  health  and  safety  of  the  workingmen  as  have  been 
agreed  upon  jointly  by  the  employers  and  the  employees  of  the  trade.  The 
action  of  trade  unionism  in  these  matters  should  become  increasingly  uni- 
versal, and  to  a  greater  and  greater  extent  must  secure  a  sanction  like  that 
given  to  the  law  itself. 


n 


PQ 


o 

u 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
THE  MORAL  UPLIFTING  OF  THE  WORKMAN 

Trade  Unions  Raise  the  Moral  Tone  of  the  Workingmen.  Effect  upon  Character 
and  Habits  of — Higher  Wages — Shorter  Hours — Decreased  Peril — Better  Sanitary 
Conditions.  Can  the  Workingman  be  Trusted  with  Leisure.  Labor  as  a  Commodity. 
The  Laborer  as  a  Man.  "Hands"  and  Men.  Morals  and  Insurance.  Morals  and  the 
Standard  of  Living.  The  Dignity  of  Labor.  Self-respect,  Democracy,  and  Morals 
in  Industry.  The  Educating  Influence  of  Trade  Unions.  Self-sacrifice  and  Unionism. 
The  Erasure  of  Lines  of  Race,  Creed,  and  Nationality.  The  Lesson  of  Universal 
Brotherhood. 

THOSE  who  look  only  at  the  surface  of  things  and  judge  trade  union- 
ism by  an  occasional  glimpse  are  likely  to  fail  signally  to  appreciate 
the  uplifting  influence  of  this  institution  upon  the  character  of  the  wage 
earners.  Many  who  admit  that  trade  unions  have  been  successful  in  raising 
wages,  shortening  hours,  and  improving  the  material  conditions  of  the 
worker's  life  still  believe  that  their  effect  upon  his  intellectual  and  moral 
tone  has  been  either  bad  or  entirely  nil.  Many  deplore  what  they  are  pleased 
to  call  the  "tyrannizing"  of  trade  unions,  their  alleged  reduction  of  all  men 
to  the  same  level,  their  supposed  tendency  to  "breed"  discontent ;  and  it  is 
asserted  that  the  strike  and  the  boycott,  which  are  laid  at  the  door  of  the 
trade  union,  also  affect  injuriously  the  morale  of  the  wage  earner. 

To  all,  however,  who  do  not  view  these  matters  superficially,  it  must  l>e 
evident  that  trade  unionism  has  had  exactly  the  opposite  effect.  The  in- 
creased wages  and  shortened  hours  of  labor  have  in  themselves  brought 
about  a  vast  improvement  in  the  mental  and  moral  status  of  the  workers. 
Workmen  who  formerly  went  from  their  twelve  hours  of  work  to  the  nearest 
saloon  now  spend  their  time  with  their  families,  improving  their  minds,  or 
enjoying  a  sensible  and  sane  recreation.  In  most  instances  increased  wages 
have  meant  the  gratification  of  the  intellectual  and  artistic  sense  of  tiie 


154  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

workers;  have  meant  books  and  pictures;  have  meant  a  few  extra  rooms 
in  the  house  and  more  decent  surroundings  generally;  have  meant  a  few 
years'  extra  schooling  for  the  children,  have  meant,  finally,  a  general  uplift- 
ing of  the  whole  working  class.  The  same  is  true  of  the  measures  taken 
by  trade  unions  to  prevent  disease  and  accidents  in  factories.  There  is 
nothing  so  demoralizing  as  the  recklessness  which  comes  with  the  constant 
peril  of  one's  life.  A  man  who  may  be  cut  down  at  any  moment  by  the  sink- 
ing of  his  ship,  by  a  bullet  from  the  enemy,  by  a  mine  explosion,  by  the  crash 
of  cars  without  automatic  couplers,  or  by  the  deadly  clutch  of  an  unfenced 
factory  machine  is  apt  to  take  little  heed  of  the  morrow  and  is  not  unlikely 
to  spend  the  present  day  in  a  reckless  debauch,  which  will  injure  him  phys- 
ically and  degrade  him  morally.  The  measures  taken  by  the  trade  unions 
to  prevent  the  killing,  maiming,  and  poisoning  of  the  toilers,  to  prevent  the 
men,  women,  and  children  of  a  factory  from  being  huddled  together  indis- 
criminately with  insufficient  air,  in  an  overheated  .or  overmoist  atmosphere, 
and  with  insufficient  sanitary  arrangements,  have  had  a  distinctly  beneficial 
effect  upon  the  morals  of  the  persons  affected. 

Trade  unionism  has  benefited  the  worker  and  raised  his  whole  intellec- 
tual and  moral  tone  by  the  emphasis  which  it  has  laid  upon  the  welfare  of 
the  workingman.  The  employer,  like  the  political  economist  of  former 
days,  was  interested  solely  in  the  amount  of  production.  He  forgot  the 
producer  in  the  goods  produced.  Trade  unionists  and  other  reformers 
have  thrown  the  emphasis  not  on  the  goods,  but  on  the  men  by  whom,  and 
ultimately  for  whom,  they  are  produced.  It  is  no  longer  the  machine,  but 
the  man  at  the  machine,  that  is  now  taking  the  center  of  the  stage  in  econom- 
ical thought. 

Formerly  and,  in  fact,  until  quite  recently,  all  discussions  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  labor,  its  rights,  and  duties  assumed  the  workingman  to  be  a  mere 
animate  machine.  The  comparison  was  frequently  made  between  the  sale 
of  labor  and  that  of  any  other  commodity,  without  reflection  that  the  seller 
of  a  bushel  of  wheat  cares  not  how,  when,  where,  or  by  whom  it  is  con- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  155 

sumed,  whereas  the  seller  of  a  day's  labor  may  be  affected  throughout  his 
life  time  by  the  manner,  place,  and  circumstances  of  the  use  of  that  day's 
labor.  The  workingman  was  considered  a  machine  which  cost  so  many 
dollars  per  day,  which  was  to  be  used  so  many  hours,  which  was  to  be  given 
the  smallest  amount  of  care,  attention,  and  fuel  necessary  to  keep  it  in  fair 
working  order.  He  was  an  organism  without  a  soul,  composed,  in  fact, 
wholly  of  hands  and  stomach.  Even  now  an  employer  speaks  of  so  many 
hundred  "hands,"  meaning  thereby  that  number  of  individual  workmen. 

As  long  as  the  ideal  of  society  was  to  produce  as  much  as  possible 
above  the  cost  of  living  of  workingmen,  it  became  an  object  to  keep 
wages  as  low  as  possible.  The  whole  emphasis  of  the  statesmen  of  three 
generations  ago  was  laid  upon  saving,  and  the  workingman  was  even  urged 
to  save  from  his  scanty  earnings  in  order  that  the  amount  to  be  devoted 
to  production  should  1>e  as  great  as  possible  and  the  amount  devoted  to  con- 
sumption, as  small  as  possible.  The  crises  which  lias  swept  over  the  civi- 
lized world  during  the  last  fifty  years  have  shown  the  falsity  of  this  ]>olicy 
and  how  dangerous  and  useless  it  is  to  stimulate  production  and  discourage 
consumption;  thus,  trade  unions  have  been  justified  in  their  successful  at- 
tempts to  raise  the  wages  of  the  workingmen  and  to  increase  consumption. 

The  trade  union  is  to  the  wage  earner  what  the  school  is  to  the  child, 
or  the  army  to  the  raw  recruit.  It  is  a  means  of  discipline  and  of  education. 
In  the  trade  union  the  workingman  learns  to  subordinate  his  own  wishes  to 
the  will  of  the  majority  and  to  aid  intelligently  in  the  formation  of  this  will. 
No  institution  is  ]>erfect,  and  no  group  of  men,  however  educated  or  how- 
ever cultivated,  can  work  with  complete  smoothness  and  absolute  perfection. 
In  actual  practice  the  trade  union  may  l>e  a  less  |>erfcct  school  than  in  theorv. 
but  on  the  whole  it  does  bring  out  the  qualities  of  mind  an-i  heart  that  tend 
to  produce  good  men  and  good  citi/.ens.  The  individual  unionist  soon  real- 
izes that  he  cannot  force  his  fellow -craftsmen  in  the  local  meetings  to  do 
his  will.  To  carry  them  with  him  he  must  convince  them,  and  to  convince 
them  he  must  know  the  facts  and  know  how  i<»  present  them.  A  system 


156  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

of  Parliamentary  law  is  in  use  in  even  the  rudest  and  simplest  of  these  meet- 
ings, and  all  men  receive  a  respectful  hearing,  no  matter  how  opposed  their 
views  to  the  general  sense  and  will  of  the  meeting. 

The  workingman  in  the  meetings  of  the  trade  union  also  learns  the 
lesson  of  subordination.  The  man  who  will  strike  rather  than  submit  to 
injustice  on  the  part  of  employers  will  cheerfully  bow  to  the  will  of  the 
union  in  which  he  himself  has  cast  his  vote.  Gradually  there  grows  up  in 
the  local  meetings,  and  especially  in  national  affairs,  a  feeling  of  tolerance 
and  a  just  appreciation  of  the  other  man's  side.  In  their  agreements  with 
employers  unionists  are  on  the  whole  more  conservative  and  reasonable  than 
are  unorganized  workmen.  It  is  an  argument  for  the  educating  influence 
of  trade  unions  that  it  is  always  the  newer  organizations  which  are  most 
turbulent  and  most  intractable,  and  even  employers  hostile  to  the  spirit  of 
trade  unionism  laud  the  older  and  better  established  organizations  and  ac- 
knowledge the  superiority  of  their  methods  and  practices. 

The  trade  union,  like  the  Church,  teaches  the  lesson  of  brotherhood. 
Before  the  union  came,  the  mining  regions  and  other  fields  of  industry  were 
rife  with  the  mutterings  of  discontent  and  full  of  internal  jealousies  among 
the  various  nationalities.  The  Irish,  English,  and  Scotch  hated  the  Italians, 
Poles,  and  Hungarians,  and  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  were  equally  at 
war.  The  non-English-speaking  laborer  was  indiscriminately  dubbed 
"John,"  and  cases  were  not  rare  in  which  the  more  defenseless  foreign  work- 
men were  made  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  displeasure  of  their  fellow-crafts- 
men. The  union,  however,  soon  changed  this.  In  the  meetings  of  the  labor 
organizations  men  of  all  nations,  languages,  and  religions  sit  or  stand  side 
by  side.  Italians  or  Poles  will  remain  for  hours  listening  to  English 
speeches,  which  they  cannot  understand,  and  will  patiently  wait  for  the 
Italian  or  Polish  speeches  which  may  close  the  meetings.  It  is  in  some- 
thing of  a  religious  spirit  that  many  of  the  men  join  the  unions  and  it  is  in 
this  spirit  that  they  make  sacrifices  for  it.  The  recognition  of  the  union 
has  a  sentimental  as  well  as  a  practical  meaning  to  these  men,  and,  as  in  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  157 

case  of  all  sentiments,  the  men  arc  willing  to  sacrifice  for  it  tangible  and 
immediate  benefits. 

If  the  morals  of  a  man  may  be  gauged  by  his  willingness  to  make  sacri- 
fices, then  the  uplifting  influence  of  trade  unionism  must  be  acknowledged. 
Men  who  year  by  year  devote  their  scanty  leisure  to  increasing  the  strength 
and  po\ver  of  the  union,  who  without  remuneration  toil  into  the  night  after 
the  enervating  work  of  the  day,  who  risk  the  blacklist  and  even  imprison- 
ment for  the  sake  of  a  principle,  show  the  extent  to  which  this  influence  is 
felt.  A  cause  that  can  inspire  so  much  self-sacrifice  cannot  be  wholly  bad. 
There  are  many  men  to-day  who  are  blacklisted  and  utterly  unable  to  secure 
work  because  of  their  loyalty  to  their  labor  organization.  No  one  who  is 
not  a  workman  can  realize  how  terrible  this  punishment  is.  It  is  like  a 
fearful,  silent  machine  which  strikes  at  all  times  and  in  all  places,  or  like  ;in 
invisible,  deadly  coil  thrown  about  the  man  and  ever  tightening.  This 
dreadful  punishment,  which  in  the  case  of  a  man  with  a  family  may  mean 
condemnation  to  death  by  starvation,  has  been  meted  out  over  and  oxer 
again  to  unionists;  yet,  notwithstanding  this  fact,  men  are  willing  to  risk 
all  for  the  sake  of  the  cause.  Union  officials  have  gone  alxnit  the  count  r\ 
talking  during  the  day  and  trudging  during  the  night,  living  off  the  scantiest 
of  food  for  the  sake  of  propagating  unionism.  At  one  time  the  secretary 
of  the  Illinois  District  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  which  is 
now  one  of  the  richest  branch  organizations  in  the  United  States,  went  alxnit 
the  country  at  his  own  expense  and.  without  hoi>e  of  repayment,  lent  to  tin- 
cause  his  last  hundred  dollars.  At  that  time  the  headquarters  of  this  dis- 
trict were  in  the  pcxrkets  of  Mr.  Ryan's  coat,  the  righthand  jx>cket  In'ing 
used  for  letters  received  and  the  left,  for  letters  answered.  This  is  but  one 
of  thousands  of  similar  cases  which  might  be  cited.  The  mutual  help  of 
unionists,  the  donations  made  by  prosj>erous  unions  to  organizations  in 
trouble,  the  willingness  with  which  the  memlK-rs  of  a  trade  union  will  take 
up  the  scrip  of  their  organization,  and  many  other  facts  show  this  readiness 
to  make  sacrifices.  The  supreme  test,  however,  of  the  willingness  of  men 


158  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

to  forget  their  own  interest  in  their  love  of  a  cause  is  seen  in  the  case  of 
strikes.  More  especially  is  this  true  in  sympathetic  strikes,  where  men  fre- 
quently risk  the  savings  of  years  for  the  sake  of  workers  whom  they  have 
never  seen  and  from  whom  they  expect  no  benefits  in  return. 

The  trade  union  distinctly  raises  the  moral  tone  of  the  wage  earners 
by  infusing  into  them  a  sense  of  the  dignity  of  labor.  There  is  much  lip 
service  paid  to  the  ennobling  effect  of  labor  and  to  the  dignity  which  it  con- 
fers upon  the  worker,  but  it  is  the  trade  union,  and  the  trade  union  alone, 
which  translates  these  mere  professions  into  actual  deeds.  The  same  man 
who  prates  about  the  worth  of  labor  and  the  dignity  of  work  often  refuses 
to  raise  wages,  lest  the  money  so  earned  will  be  spent  in  drunkenness  and 
dissipation ;  or  to  reduce  hours,  lest  the  workman,  dignified  by  his  labor,  will 
resort  immediately  to  some  unworthy  place  and  waste  his  new-gained  leisure 
in  a  foolish  or  vicious  manner.  The  same  man  who  discourses  eloquently 
upon  the  dignity  of  labor  is  unwilling  that  his  employees  shall  have  any- 
thing to  say  with  regard  to  the  conditions  of  their  work  or  the  manner  in 
which  the  greater  portion  of  their  waking  hours  shall  be  spent.  The  work- 
ing man,  like  the  voter,  is  treated  with  occasional  deference  in  after-dinner 
speeches,  but  not  infrequently  with  contempt  in  ordinary  times.  Although 
a  sovereign  crowned  with  the  dignity  of  labor,  the  ultimate  repository  of 
power  and  the  real  producer  of  the  wealth  of  the  nation,  he  is  not  considered 
worthy  of  a  voice  in  the  disposal  of  his  own  time. 

In  one  sense  the  labor  unions  believe  earnestly  in  the  dignity  of  labor, 
and  in  another  sense  they  do  not.  They  believe  that  no  matter  how  menial 
the  work,  no  matter  how  deadening,  how  monotonous,  how  onerous,  or  even 
how  filthy,  the  man  who  performs  it  faithfully  is  deserving  of  the  praise  arid 
the  thanks  of  the  community,  and  is  not  paid  in  full  when  he  receives  his 
wages.  The  unionists  feel  that  it  is  not  the  work  itself,  but  the  spirit  in 
which  the  work  is  accepted  and  performed,  that  ennobles  the  worker.  The 
unionist  does  not  believe  that  man  was  put  upon  this  earth  for  no  better 
purpose  than  ceaselessly  to  push  a  piece  of  wire  through  a  little  hole,  or  end- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  159 

lessly  repeat  the  same  simple,  uniform  operation.  He  believes,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  man  should  be,  as  far  as  possible,  relieved  from  work  partaking1 
of  the  character  of  drudgery,  but  that  such  work  as  is  necessary  should  be 
performed  unhesitatingly,  uncomplainingly,  and  conscientiously. 

The  principal  element  which  gives  to  labor  its  dignity  and  ennobling 
quality  is  its  voluntary  character.  There  is  nothing  ennobling  about  the  toil 
of  the  slave  crouching  beneath  the  lash.  There  is  nothing  ennobling  in  the 
work  of  the  serf  bowed  down  by  the  weight  of  centuries.  There  is  little 
of  the  dignity  of  labor  in  the  forced  work  of  the  convict,  or  of  the  man  toil- 
ing under  the  padrone  system.  The  greater  the  initiative  and  the  more 
complete  the  independence  of  the  worker,  the  greater  the  pleasure  in  his 
work  and  the  more  educating  and  ennobling  it  becomes.  We  cannot  do 
without  subordination ;  we  cannot  carry  on  our  great  industries  without  the 
subjection  of  the  individual  workman  to  the  will  which  directs  the  whole 
machinery.  When,  however,  the  wage  earners  have  themselves  fixed  upon 
fair  and  reasonable  working  rules,  voted  upon  by  them  in  joint  convention 
and  obtained  as  a  right  from  the  employer,  when  the  workingman  is  respon- 
sible to  his  fellow-craftsmen  for  the  excellence  of  his  work  and  is  enabled 
to  perform  it  under  conditions  which  permit  efficiency  and  self-satisfaction, 
work  becomes  a  pleasure,  and  what  was  formerly  a  stern  duty  becomes,  as 
in  the  case  of  artistic  or  intellectual  work,  the  joy  of  achievement. 


CHAPTER  XIX 
HOW  TRADE  UNIONS  BENEFIT  EMPLOYER  AND  PUBLIC 

Workman's  Gain  is  not  Employer's  Loss.  Interests  largely  Identical.  How  the 
Trade  Union  Benefits  the  Employer.  Cotton  Spinners  in  India  and  Massachusetts. 
Cheerfulness  and  Profits.  Why  Slavery  does  not  Pay.  High  Wages,  Short  Hours, 
and  Great  Efficiency.  Waste  and  Wages.  Trade  Unionism  Increases  Demand  for 
Products  of  Industry.  Works  for  Good  Times  and  against  Crises.  The  ''Most  Fav- 
ored" Employer.  A  Premium  on  Scruples.  The  Improvement  of  the  Employing 

Class. 

<•• 

T  T  is  a  mistake  to  assume,  as  is  often  done,  that  a  gain  to  the  workman  is 
*  a  loss  to  the  employer.  In  a  large  and  very  real  sense,  the  interests  of 
employers  and  workmen  are  reciprocal,  and  in  benefiting  the  wage  earner 
the  trade  union  may  secure  quite  as  important  and  permanent  an  advantage 
to  the  employer.  The  workman  labors  shorter  hours,  and  the  output  of  the 
factory  is  enlarged ;  the  workman  gets  higher  wages,  and  the  manufacturer 
produces  more  cheaply;  the  workman  secures  protection  to  life  and  limb, 
to  health  and  morals,  and  profits  increase.  The  trade  union  protects  not 
only  the  workingman  but  the  better  class  of  employers,  as  well,  from  the 
unfair  competition  of  the  avaricious ;  it  has  thus  tended  to  weed  out  the 
most  unscrupulous  employers  and  to  raise  the  moral  tone  of  the  employing 
as  well  as  of  the  laboring  classes.  It  places  business  upon  the  firm  basis 
of  a  fixed,  definite  labor  cost,  it  indirectly  increases  the  demand  for  the  pro 
duct  of  the  manufacturer  and  steadies  industry  in  general. 

It  has  been  repeatedly  shown  that  the  advance  in  wages  and  the  short- 
ening of  hours  have  resulted  not  in  an  increased,  but  actually  in  a  reduced 
cost.  In  most  industries  it  has  been  clearly  demonstrated  that  a  workman 
really  accomplishes  more  in  ten  hours  of  regular  work  than  he  formerly  ac- 
complished in  twelve;  and  in  many  industries  the  reduction  of  hours  from 

(160) 


< 

s 


-^  s 


S  5 
(u  _r 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  l6l 

ten  to  eight  has  meant  increased  production  as  well  as  greater  profits  to  the 
employer.  Witnesses  before  the  Industrial  Commission  testified  to  the  fact 
that  in  their  establishments  output  increased  with  the  shortening'  of  the 
working  day.  Weavers  in  silk  mills  produced  more  in  nine  hours  than  in 
ten,  workmen  in  a  large  drop  forge  establishment  also  increased  their  output 
upon  a  reduction  in  the  hours  of  labor,  and  other  cases  were  cited  which 
prove  the  same  point.  As  a  result  of  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  from 
ten  to  eight  the  output  of  bituminous  coal  per  miner  has  largely  increased. 
The  same  truth,  the  economy  of  a  short  working  day,  has  been  manifested 
in  England,  where  the  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor  has  been  coincident 
with  a  cheapening  of  production  and  a  rapid  extension  of  foreign  markets. 

There  are  several  reasons  for  this  increased  output  on  the  part  of  men 
working  shorter  hours.  The  body  and  mind  of  the  workman  are  in  l>etter 
condition  when  he  is  not  overstrained  and  overtaxed  during  an  excessively 
long  working  day,  and  the  increased  intensity  and  intelligence  of  the  work 
is  accompanied  by  an  increased  cheerfulness,  which  makes  difficult  tasks 
easy.  If  in  a  comparatively  small  number  of  hours  the  workman  can  eani 
enough  to  educate  himself  and  children,  his  ability  and  efficiency  during 
these  few  hours  will  be  greater  than  when  he  worked  a  longer  time; 
consequently  the  cost  of  his  production  is  lessened,  and  his  children  will  in 
turn  stand  a  tetter  chance  of  becoming  good  workmen.  In  a  short  working 
day,  also,  there  is  less  waste  as  regards  materials,  time,  and  supervision,  the 
men  commencing  on  the  minute  instead  of  "soldiering"  or  dawdling  for  a 
jx^rtion  of  the  day.  The  necessity  of  economizing  lalx>r,  moreover,  is  felt 
much  more  keenly  when  the  working  day  is  short.  As  a  result,  machinery 
is  introduced  wherever  ]>ossible,  and  work  is  tetter  organi/.cd.  tetter  con- 
ducted, and  tetter  suj>ervised. 

What   applies  to  the  hours  of  lalx>r  is  equally  true  of  advances  in 

wa^es.     The  organization  of  labor  lias  had   tin-  eflrri   of   largely   increas- 

ing  wages.     This  increase  has  represented  an  advance  not  only  in  nominal 

but  in  real  wages,  not  only  in  the  actual  amount  of  money  paid  to  the  \vork- 

1 1 


162  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

man,  but  in  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  goods  which  the  workman  can 
secure  for  such  rponey.  There  is  a  difference,  however,  between  the  wages 
of  labor  and  the  cost  of  labor.  The  employee  is  interested  only  in  the 
amount  of  his  earnings ;  the  employer,  on  the  other  hand,  not  in  how  much 
he  pays  any  particular  workman  or  even  the  whole  body  of  workmen,  but 
how  much  he  obtains  in  return  for  that  payment.  It  is  far  better  for  an 
employer  to  pay  two  dollars  a  day  to  a  man  who  can  make  ten  articles  of  a 
given  kind  than  to  pay  one  dollar  to  a  man  who  can  make  four.  No  labor 
is  so  cheap  as  that  of  the  well-paid  workman,  no  labor  so  dear  as  that  of  the 
under-paid  workman.  A  starving  employee  is  dear  at  any  price. 

Many  critics  of  trade  unionism  argue  as  though  all  workmen  were  en- 
dowed with  the  same  capabilities,  as  though  the  Massachusetts  or  Lanca- 
shire cotton  spinner  were  no  more  efficient  than  the  East  Indian,  or  the 
work  of  the  farm  laborer  of  Nebraska,  no  more  productive  than  that  of  the 
Russian  or  Hungarian  peasant.  It  is  not  true  that  all  men  are  equally  cap- 
able. The  productivity  of  labor  varies  in  different  countries  and  depends 
upon  a  number  of  conditions — the  liberality  of  the  workman's  diet,  his  gen- 
eral education,  his  technical  training,  his  hopeful  or  despondent  outlook 
upon  life,  and  his  attitude  toward  work.  To  pay  such  wages  as  make  it 
impossible  for  a  workman  to  procure  sufficient  food  is  as  poor  economy  as 
to  underfeed  a  horse  or  to  understoke  an  engine;  and  to  increase  the  la- 
borer's intelligence  and  his  chances  for  securing  a  technical  education  is  to 
increase  by  so  much  his  working  capacity  and  to  lower  the  actual  cost  of 
his  labor^  An  even  more  important  factor  is  that  when  labor  is  well  paid 
and  hours  short,  the  man  is  apt  to  be  infused  with  intelligent  hopefulness 
and  contentment.  I  do  not  mean  the  blind,  stupid  contentment  of  the  man 
without  ambition,  who  takes  what  is  offered  and  gives  in  the  form  of  labor 
what  he  must.  I  mean  the  contentment  and  hopefulness  of  the  man  who 
looks  forward  to  increasing  his  wage  by  augmenting  his  efficiency  and  his 
power  of  work.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  slave  labor  is  usually  unable 
to  compete  with  free  labor,  though  the  master  pays  the  slave  only  what  will 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  163 

keep  him  alive  and  exacts  from  him  as  many  hours  of  labor  as  he,  the  mas- 
ter, chooses.  The  ignorance,  unreliability,  and  lack  of  hopefulness  of  the 
slave  make  him  dear  at  any  price.  The  same  is  true  of  serfs  or  of  persons 
in  a  semi-slavish  condition.  The  history  of  modern  Europe  shows  that  a 
serf  is  always  worth -more  to  himself  than  to  his  master,  and  where  the  law 
allows,  the  serf  can  actually  purchase  his  freedom  by  the  difference  between 
what  he  can  create  as  a  free  man  and  what  he  would  produce  when  not  free. 

In  the  present  state  of  society,  only  those  are  stimulated  to  the  extent 
of  their  powers  who  receive  the  full  benefit  of  all  that  they  produce.  The 
peasant  proprietor  or  the  small  American  farmer  will  work  long  hours, 
under  severe  strain,  because  he  realizes  that  the  full  advantage  of  his  labor 
accrues  to  himself.  For  the  same  reason,  the  lawyer,  the  doctor,  and  other 
professional  workers  are  also  willing  to  apply  themselves  for  excessively 
long  hours.  Of  course,  it  is  not  possible  to  give  the  great  majority  of  wage 
earners  that  exclusive  interest  in  the  result  of  their  labor  which  will  incite 
them  to  work  inordinately  long  hours.  It  is  doubtful  whether  under  pres- 
ent conditions  such  an  unusual  stimulus  would  be  advantageous  even  if 
possible.  However,  a  healthy  incentive  is  given  to  labor  by  trade  union- 
ism, which  increases  the  wages  of  the  workingmen  and  encourages  their 
reasonable  anticipations  of  a  still  further  betterment  in  their  conditions, 
and  consequently  results  in  an  enhanced  cheerfulness  and  an  increased  pro- 
duct. The  icleal  of  the  trade  unions  should  always  be  high  wages,  short 
hours,  and  great  efficiency,  and  the  realization  of  these  ideals  means  higher 
real  wages  for  the  men  ami  cheaper  production  for  the  employer. 

Trade  unionism  tends  to  improve  workmen  not  only  directly,  through 
an  increase  in  wages  and  a  reduction  in  hours,  but  it  attains  the  same 
end  in  an  indirect  manner.  The  general  policy  of  trade  unionism,  as  has 
been  explained  l>efore,  is  the  establishment  of  a  minimum  wage,  safeguard- 
ing, as  a  rule,  the  right  of  the  employer  to  discharge  for  proved  inefficiency. 
The  result  of  this  is  the  gradual  creation  of  a  dead  line  or  a  standard  of 
efficiency,  to  which  all  who  work  must  attain.  When  there  is  a  minimum 


164  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

wage  of  four  dollars  a  day,  the  workman  can  no  longer  choose  to  do  only 
three  dollars'  worth  of  work  and  be  paid  accordingly,  but  he  must  earn 
four  dollars,  or  else  cease  from  work,  at  least  in  that  particular  trade, 
locality,  or  establishment,  the  consciousness  that  he  may  be  employed  for 
a  varying  wage  permits  many  a  man  to  give  way  to  his  natural  idleness  and 
carelessness,  whereas  the  maintenance  of  a  rigid  standard  causes  a  rapid 
and  steady  improvement.  The  minimum  wage  acts  upon  the  workman  as 
the  school  examination  upon  the  child.  If  a  child  falls,  by  however  small 
a  margin,  below  the  standard  set  by  the  school,  he  fails  of  promotion,  and 
the  stimulus  which  is  strong  in  the  case  of  a  school  child  is  infinitely  more 
intense  in  that  of  a  worker  with  a  family  dependent  upon  him.  The  prin- 
ciple of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  through  union  regulations,  works  out 
slowly  and  unevenly ;  nevertheless  its  general  effect  is  toward  a  steady  and 
continuous  progress  of  workingmen  to  a  permanently  higher  standard  of 
efficiency. 

The  trade  union  confers  still  another  benefit  upon  the  employer  in 
definitely  setting  a  price  upon  the  cost  of  his  labor.  The  union  practically 
says  to  the  employer,  ''You  shall  pay  at  least  so  much  for  each  man  you 
employ,  and  we  guarantee  to  you  that  no  one  competing  with  you  will  re- 
ceive his  labor  at  a.  lower  rate."  Each  employer  is  guaranteed  a  wage  cost 
as  low  as  the  most  favored  employer  in  the  trade  and  district.  In  former 
times,  and  even  to-day  where  trade  is  not  organized,  the  employer 
is  sometimes  driven  by  a  power  which  he  cannot  resist,  to  force 
down  wages,  to  defraud  employees,  and  to  resort  to  all  manner  of 
tricks,  cheating,  and  evasions,  which  he  finds  distasteful  but  necessary. 
In  unorganized  trades,  the  honorable  employer  is  at  a  disadvantage 
in  competition  with  an  unscrupulous  employer,  and  the  man  who  will 
not  grind  the  face  of  his  workpeople,  may  find  himself  undersold  by 
men  of  lower  moral  calibre.  The  establishment  by  trade  unions  of 
a  definite  and  irreducible  minimum  of  pay  and  an  equally  definite  max- 
imum of  time,  places  competition  where  it  should  be — upon  a  plane  of 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  165 

legitimate  business  activity  and  upon  a  basis  of  business  acumen  and  fore- 
sight. The  minimum  wage  and  other  union  regulations,  place  a  premium 
on  scruples.  The  employer  who  cannot  gain  an  advantage  by  robbing  his 
workmen  is  obliged,  in  order  to  secure  profits,  to  obtain  the  latest  machinery, 
to  effect  economies  in  production,  to  seek  a  wider  or  a  better  market,  to  im- 
prove the  quality  of  his  goods,  or  to  branch  out  into  new  industries.  Thus, 
the  necessity  imposed  by  the  trade  unions  becomes  the  mother  of  invention 
in  all  legitimate  fields  of  business  activity.  The  establishment  of  a  fixed 
minimum  price  for  labor  acts  upon  the  employer  like  the  establishment  of 
a  fixed  charge  for  transportation.  It  prevents  men  from  securing  unfair 
rebates  from  workmen,  just  as  the  law  prevents  or  seeks  to  prevent,  shippers 
from  securing  rebates  from  the  railroads,  and  it  thus  puts  all  employers 
upon  an  equal  footing,  where  the  fittest  may  survive.  There  is  nothing  so 
certain,  nothing  so  advantageous  and  promising  as  the  gradual  improvement 
in  the  mental  and  moral  calibre  as  well  as  in  the  business  methods  of  the  em- 
ploying class,  and  in  this  improvement  trade  unionism  has  played  a  not  un- 
important part. 

Trade  unionism  not  only  increases  the  ability  of  manufacturers  to  pro- 
duce, but  equally  their  ability  to  sell.  To  an  ever  increasing  extent,  the 
working  classes  are  becoming  consumers  of  the  nation's  products,  and  with 
every  increase  in  their  wages,  there  conies  an  increase  in  their  ability  and 
willingness  to  purchase  the  products  of  labor.  The  industries  of  the  country 
ilourish  best  when  there  is  a  large  and  constant  demand  for  the  products  of 
labor,  and  this  demand  can  best  be  stimulated  by  increased  wages  and 
shorter  hours.  The  consumption  of  wealth  by  the  very  rich  is  more  incon- 
stant and  less  ijenefkial  to  the  community  than  is  that  of  the  great  wage 
earning  class.  Most  of  the  articles  made  by  machinery  arc  purchase*  1  by 
the  working  classes,  and  periods  of  great  prosi>ority  are  those  in  which  the 
producers  of  wealth  themselves  furnish  the  <lcm;m<l  for  the  articles  ot  con- 
sumption. 

If  we  look  about  us  at  the  present  time,  we  will  notice  an  ever  increasing 


166  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

demand  of  the  working  classes  for  the  products  of  labor.  Even  a  millionaire 
cannot  wear  many  more  shoes,  hats,  coats,  or  shirts  than  a  poor  man,  and  his 
consumption  of  food  is  also  not  much  greater.  The  majority  of  the  articles 
offered  for  sale  in  a  store  are  purchased  by  men  of  small  or  moderate  income, 
and  most  of  the  public  services,  such  as  street-car  transportation,  are  for  the 
benefit  of  men  of  limited  means.  The  crises  which  periodically  visit 
modern  communities  result  from  an  unequal  distribution  of  the  wealth  of 
the  community — too  large  a  share  being  in  the  control  of  employing  and  in- 
vesting classes,  and  too  small  a  portion  in  the  hands  of  the  consumers,  es- 
pecially of  the  working  classes.  Society  can  escape  from  such  a  crisis  only 
by  one  of  two  ways — by  destroying  or  decreasing  the  amount  of  capital  in- 
vested in  production,  or  by  increasing  the  ability  of  the  consumers  to  pay 
more  for  necessaries  and  comforts.  Unfortunately,  when  such  periods  of 
depression  come,  they  are  rendered  more  grievous  by  a  lowering  of  wages, 
which  decreases  the  purchasing  power  of  the  workingman.  These  ever  re- 
curring crises  may  be  moderated  to  a  certain  extent  by  the  action  of  trade 
unions  in  raising  wages,  increasing  consumption,  and  creating  and  maintain- 
ing a  permanent  stimulus  to  production  by  increasing  the  popular  demand 
for  the  articles  produced. 


CHAPTER  XX 
THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  UNSKILLED 

The  Problem  of  Poverty.  The  Dilemma  of  the  Unskilled.  What  Trade  Unionism 
has  Already  Accomplished.  The  Unemployed  and  the  Partially  Employed.  Raising 
Sections  of  the  Unorganized.  Progress  by  Selection.  The  Limited  Possibilities  of 
the  Untrained  Workmen.  The  Incapables.  The  Duty  of  Society.  Will  the  Unions  of 
the  Unskilled  Live?  Mutual  Aid. 

f"PHE  great  problem  of  poverty resides  in  the  conditions  of 

the  low-skilled  workman.  To  live  industrially  under  the  new  or- 
der he  must  organize,  lie  cannot  organize  because  he  is  so  poor,  so  ignor- 
ant, so  weak.  Because  he  is  not  organized  he  continues  to  be  poor,  ignor- 
ant, weak.  Here  is  a  great  dilemma,  of  which  whoever  shall  have  found 
the  key  will  have  done  much  to  solve  the  problem  of  poverty."1 

In  the  alx>ve  paragraph  a  noted  political  economist  sums  up  the  prob- 
lems of  poverty  as  they  exist  to-day  in  the  more  advanced  nations  of  the 
world.  The  author  of  this  book  believes  that  the  destruction  of  the  un- 
skilled workingman  is  his  lack  of  organization,  and  that  owing  to  his  ab- 
sence of  skill  and  his  lack  of  intelligence,  it  is  impossible  to  bring  him  into 
lalx>r  organizations.  Trade  unions  have  always  recognized  that  in  this 
question  of  the  unskilled  lies  the  very  essence  of  the  trade  union  problem. 
The  great  mass  of  unskilled,  untrained  men  residing  in  a  community,  living 
by  (xld  jobs,  and  willing  to  take  any  work  at  any  price  at  any  time,  is  a 
serious  drawback  to  the  trade  union  movement  and  a  menace  to  the  society 
in  which  they  live.  In  the  slums  of  our  great  cities  reside  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  men,  brutalized  by  ixncrty  and  forced  by  their  needs  to  lead 
an  anti-social  life.  There  is  in  every  city  an  army  of  men  who.  by  reason 
of  their  lack  of  means,  are  forced  to  jierform  work  unsteadily  and  lit  fully. 


1  llubbun,  John  A.     Problems  of  Poverty  (London,  i8yi),  pa^je  j-7. 

(I67) 


,68  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

vho  are  subject  to  unemployment,  and  to  all  the  ills  of  modern  industrial 
life. 

It  is  urged  against  trade  unionism  that  it  does  nothing,  and  can  do 
nothing,  for  the  great  mass  of  the  unskilled.  It  is  claimed  that  the  unions 
exist  only  for  a  small  minority  of  workingmen,  namely,  those  who  are 
skilled,  and  have  a  particular  trade,  and  that  for  the  great  mass  of  men 
there  is  no  hope  and  no  salvation  in  labor  organization.  It  is  stated  that 
trade  unionism  merely  raises  a  small  section  of  workers,  creates  a  new  class 
of  skilled  workmen  out  of  a  fragment  of  the  entire  laboring  population, 
and  thus  fulfills  only  the  aims  of  a  new  and  moderately  small  class,  instead 
of  working  for  the  welfare  of  humanity. 

Those  who  argue  in  this  way — and  they  may  be  said  to  be  the  majority 
— fail  to  see  what  trade  unionism  has  already  done  for  these  masses  and 
the  possibility  of  further  action  in  the  future.  It  must  be  admitted  that  this 
problem  of  the  unskilled  and  untrained  is  intensely  difficult,  and  that  it  is 
only  partially  solvable  by  direct  trade  union  effort.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  it  constitutes  a  menace  to  the  trade  union  world  and  that  it  raises  dif- 
ficulties compared  to  which  all  other  problems  of  trade  unionism  sink  into 
insignificance.  However,  trade  unionism  has  essayed  the  solution  of  the 
problem  and  has  already  accomplished  at  least  something  toward  minimiz- 
ing it  and  improving  the  conditions  of  large  groups  within  this  class. 

The  activity  of  trade  unionism  in  this  matter  may  best  be  observed  by 
a  study  of  conditions  as  they  actually  exist  in  England  and  in  the  United 
States.  It  has  been  shown  that  one-third  of  the  whole  population  of  Lon- 
don earn  only  about  five  dollars  per  week  per  family.  Investigations  in 
other  English  cities  also  prove  conclusively  that  vast  sections  of  the  popu- 
lation live  below  what  is  called  the  poverty  line,  in  other  words,  receive  a 
wage  less  than  that  which  will  purchase  ordinary  necessaries  of  life  and 
will  maintain  health  and  vigor.  While  the  conditions  in  American  cities 
have  not  been  investigated  so  carefully,  they  also  show  an  enormous  amount, 
of  poverty.  The  slums  of  our  large  cities  contain  vast  armies  of  men  liv- 
ing below  what  is  necessary  for  health.  The  number  of  men  who  can  do 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  169 

unskilled  work  but  can  not  secure  it  permanently  is  enormous  and  the  num- 
ber of  men  unable  to  do  even  this  kind  of  work  is  equally  great.  The  con- 
ditions of  life  of  many  of  these  unfortunates  are  such  as  to  destroy  utterly 
hundreds  of  thousands.  Many  of  these  people  live  crowded  together  in 
unspeakable  dwellings  and  obtain  a  quantity  of  food  insufficient  to  maintain 
vigor  or  sometimes  even  mere  existence.  The  cost  of  necessary  articles  of 
consumption  is  exorbitantly  high  to  these  classes  owing  to  the  fact  that  they 
must  make  their  purchases  in  small  quantities,  and  as  a  result  of  their  fre- 
quent unemployment  they  are  not  able  to  maintain  life  decently  at  any  time. 
Our  vast  army  of  criminals  and  tramps,  recruited  from  the  temporarily  un- 
employed and  the  entirely  unskilled,  bears  witness  also  to  the  existence  of 
these  multitudes  of  penniless  men.  The  Jacks-of-all  trades,  men  who  can 
secure  no  permanent  ]x>sition,  but  shift  from  place  to  place,  as  though  tossed 
by  the  waves  of  the  sea,  form  a  regiment  in  this  vast  army.  All  classes, 
kinds,  and  sorts  of  men  are  merged  in  this  great  group,  men  unskilled  and 
untrained,  men,  used  by  industry  when  necessary  and  thrown  aside  when 
the  necessity  ceases.  Hroken  down  men  from  other  ranks  of  life,  men  of 
small  physical  or  mental  strength,  men  aflliclcd  by  disease  or  with  deform- 
ity, professional  idlers,  men  bankrupt  in  health  and  spirits,  men  broken  by 
the  wheel  of  industrial  life,  worn-out  factory  children  grown  up — all  these 
enter  into  this  enormous  group.  These  men,  if  they  work  at  all.  work  at 
some  form  of  unskilled  lalx>r,  labor  which  can  l>e  learned  in  two  or  three 
days  or,  it  may  l>e,  in  two  or  three  hours,  and  form  an  army  reenforced 
enormously  by  the  annual  advent  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  immigrants, 
willing  at  the  start  to  work  at  any  price,  and  to  perform  any  lal>or,  however 
menial  and  however  ill-paid. 

The  problem  confronting  trade  unionism  is  how  to  raise  these  men 
to  a  position  where  they  can  demand  and  maintain  a  minimum  standard 
of  wages  and  conditions;  how  to  elevate  them  so  that  they  will  do  efficient 
work  for  sufficient  remuneration  and  lx*come  regularly  enrolled  as  memljcrs 
of  a  i>ermanent  industrial  army.  The  \ery  existence  of  a  minimum  wage 
presupposes  the  ability  of  the  workman  to  earn  it.  and  trade  unionism  itself. 


170  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

therefore,  apparently  renders  the  hold  on  life  of  many  of  these  wretches 
more  precarious  by  depriving  them  of  the  opportunity  to  earn  a  small  por- 
tion of  a  minimum  wage  in  the  hours  or  days  which  they  are  willing  or  able 
to  devote  to  the  work.  At  first  sight  it  would  appear  that  trade  unionism, 
far  from  benefiting,  has  the  effect  of  actually  injuring  these  poor  wretches. 
By  fixing  a  minimum  wage  of  two  dollars  a  day,  the  union  practically  shuts 
the  gate  upon  men  who  could  earn  a  dollar  a  day  for  a  dollar's  worth  of 
work,  but  who  cannot  earn  two  dollars  a  day,  because  their  work  is  not 
worth  two  dollars.  These  unskilled  workmen  are  thus  precluded  from 
earning  a  fraction  of  the  minimum  wage  by  doing  a  fraction  of  the  work 
expected  of  them.  The  attitude  of  the  unions  in  this  matter  is  like  their  at- 
titude towards  the  question  of  immigration,  when  they  propose  the  exclu- 
sion of  all  immigrants  who  do  not  attain  a  certain  standard  of  proficiency 
and  efficiency,  and  seek  to  shut  out  from  the  country  men  incapable  of  earn- 
ing fair  wages. 

In  the  long  run,  however,  trade  unionism  actually  benefits  these  work- 
men, and  by  this  very  policy.  Trade  unionism  has  been  successful  in  rais- 
ing one  trade  after  another  out  of  the  profound  slough  of  unskilled,  un- 
trained, and  unregulated  labor.  Much  work  which  was  formerly  abso- 
lutely unskilled  and  at  which  men  were  employed  a  few  hours  at  a  time 
to  be  taken  on  or  discharged,  fined  or  suspended  at  will,  has  now  become  or- 
ganized so  that  the  men  secure  fair  wages  and  by  reason  of  that  very  fact 
earn  and  deserve  them.  As  soon  as  an  unskilled  trade  of  this  sort  becomes 
organized,  wages  are  raised,  the  calibre  of  the  men  is  improved,  and  their 
ability  to  earn  as  well  as  to  secure  good  wages,  is  greatly  increased.  The 
organization  of  a  hitherto  unskilled  trade  restricts  the  opportunities  of  in- 
capable men  by  debarring  them  from  it,  but  it  takes  from  the  mass  of  un- 
organized workmen  a  large  section  and  improves  their  condition. 

This^gradual  elevation  of  one  industry  after  another  has  widened  the 
field  of  union  activity  and  progressively  reduced  the  scope,  and  sets  limits 
to  the  extent,  of  the  influence  of  the  great  body  of  unorganized  and  un- 
skilled workmen.  With  every  decade  the  trades  which  can  be  organized 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  171 

are  increased  in  number  and  membership,  and  the  opportunities  of  employ- 
ment for  the  absolutely  incapable  are  decreased,  their  absolute  destitution 
becoming  more  obvious.  The  only  progress  which  trade  unionism  can 
make  in  this  direction  is  successively  to  take  out  one  section  after  another 
from  the  mass  of  the  unskilled  and  unorganized,  and  thus  to  show  society 
more  and  more  clearly  its  duty  towards  the  incapables  who  can  not  enter 
any  trade. 

This  elevation  and  improvement  by  selection  takes  place  sooner  where 
large  groups  of  unskilled  men  are  aggregated,  or  where  by  reason  of  a  good 
strategic  position  they  can  secure  more  favorable  terms.  For  example, 
unskilled  workmen  engaged  in  transportation  have  a  certain  advantage 
owing  to  the  fact  of  their  function  and  activity  being  so  essential  to  the  pros- 
perity of  the  country.  Other  bodies  of  unorganized  workmen  rise  out  of 
their  depressed  position  owing  to  help  given  to  them  by  meml>ers  of  more 
skilled  trades.  Where  a  Ixxly  of  men  have  work  which  is  contributory 
to  the  work  of  employees  more  skilled,  it  frequently  occurs  that  the  skilled 
workmen  make  an  alliance  with  them  and  aid  them  in  securing  higher 
wages.  What  is  called  the  industrial  union  or  the  union  comix >sed  of  all 
men  in  an  industry,  as  distinguished  from  a  "trade"  union,  which  comprises 
only  the  men  at  a  given  special  occupation,  is  esixxrially  favorable  to  the 
protection  of  the  unskilled  men.  An  industrial  union  composed  of  fifty 
thousand  skilled  and  one  hundred  thousand  unskilled  men  could  by  a  strike 
or  through  negotiation  secure  l>etter  conditions  not  only  for  the  skilled,  but 
for  the  unskilled  men.  This  has  l>een  one  of  the  great  advantages  of  the 
industrial  unions,  that  they  have  the  ix>ssibility,  and  frequently  exercise  the 
power,  of  raising  the  standard  of  the  unskilled  while  improving  the  condi- 
tions of  the  skilled  men. 

The  result  of  this  activity  of  the  trade  union  is  to  decrease  the  nmnl>er 
of  men  who  are  suffering  from  want  of  the  protection  of  labor  organi/a- 
tions,  but  not  actually  to  improve  the  conditions  of  those  that  remain.  The 
men  who  are  utterly  incapable,  whether  through  misfortune  or  otherwise. 
of  holding  a  permanent  |>ositioii.  cannot  jn-rhaps  IK*  greatly  Ixmefited  by 


172  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

any  direct  action  of  trade  unionism.  Trade  unionism  improves  the  condi- 
tions of  the  unorganized,  unskilled  workers  by  lessening  their  numbers, 
rather  than  by  bettering  the  condition  of  those  who  are  below  the  line  of 
organization. 

To  a  certain  extent,  however,  trade  unions  appear  to  benefit  even  the 
unorganized  workmen  who  are  not  yet  ready  to  be  unionized.  While  the 
unions  actually  restrict  the  number  of  positions  to  which  these  men  are  eli- 
gible, they  at  the  same  time  definitely  diminish  the  competition  for  the  po- 
sitions of  these  unorganized  men  by  making  their  unsteady  jobs  undesir- 
able to  men  who  have  been  organized  and  whose  work  has  been  elevated 
into  a  trade.  In  another  and  more  subtle  way  the  trade  unions  effect  an  in- 
crease in  wages,  and  an  improvement  in  the  condition,  of  unorganized 
workmen.  The  standard  of  living  and  the  demands  of  even  unorganized 
and  exploited  workmen  increase  by  reason  of  the  improvement  in  the  or- 
ganized industries.  By  and  through  trade  unionism,  not  only  unorganized 
workmen,  but  employers  and  the  general  public  as  well,  have  been  educated 
to  a  point  where  conditions  which  would  once  have  been  acceptable  now 
are  deemed  intolerable.  The  wages  of  unskilled  men  are  increased  not  only 
by  actual  membership  in  a  trade  union,  but  by  the  possibility  or  potentiality 
of  becoming  members.  Just  as  the  wages  of  unorganized  domestic  ser- 
vants hare  been  increased  with  each  increase  in  the  opportunities  offered 
to  women  to  secure  more  remunerative  occupations  elsewhere,  so  the  wages 
of  unskilled  men  outside  the  unions  are  increased  by  the  poss-ibility  of  their 
entering  the  organized  trades,  composed  of  men  of  about  equal  capacity. 
The  good  which  unions  do  is  never  limited  to  their  own  members  but  is 
extended  to  those  who  are  sufficiently  capable  workmen  to  become  members. 

The  men,  however,  who  permanently  remain  below  the  level  of  trade 
unionism  by  reason  of  incapacity  are  destined  to  be  exploited  by  profit- 
seeking  employers.  Trade  unionism  attempts  to  prevent  this  evil  also  by 
factory  legislation  and  by  forbidding  men  to  work  under  certain  unhealthy 
and  evil  conditions.  The  result  of  this  is  still  further  to  increase  the  num- 
ber of  men  obtaining  reasonably  fair  conditions  of  work,  but  still  further 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  173 

to  deprive  a  certain  small  section  of  workmen  from  securing  any  employ- 
ment whatsoever.  Trade  unionism  progressively  separates  the  capables 
from  the  incapables,  extending  the  work  of  capable  men,  preventing  the  in- 
capacitation  of  tens  of  thousands  of  workers,  and  limiting  with  the  forma- 
tion of  each  union  the  opportunities  for  work  of  the  men  who  remain  !>elo\v. 
The  effect  of  this  is  to  reduce  the  number  of  men  who  are  incapable  and 
to  render  the  condition  of  each  of  these  less  desirable,  his  hold  upon  life 
more  precarious. 

In  this  tendency  trade  unionism  acts  as  does  the  physician  who  sepa- 
rates the  healthy  from  the  diseased.  It  may  l>e  of  comfort  to  the  man  suffer- 
ing with  a  contagious  disease  to  have  healthy  and  cheerful  men  about  him. 
but  if  the  healthy  man  catch  the  disease,  both  are  worse  off  in  the  long  run. 
At  the  present  time  the  thoroughly  unskilled  Jacks-of-all  trades,  the  men 
who  are  chronically  unemployed,  act  as  a  terrible  deadweight  upon  the 
working  population  of  the  United  States.  These  men  driven  by  the  pangs 
of  hunger  accept  work  at  any  price  and  thus  break  down  the  scale  painfully 
built  up  by  workmen,  so  that  their  poverty,  distress  and  chronic  unemploy- 
ment l>ecome  contagious  and  others  are  reduced  to  their  level.  This  vast 
army  of  men,  mam*  of  them  half  supported  by  charity,  many  of  them  liv- 
ing l>el()\v  the  standard  of  any  reasonable  human  being  are  employed,  at 
least  partially,  during  the  good  times,  and  at  all  times  are  used  to  break 
down  the  wage  scale  and  lower  the  standard  of  living  of  the  more  efficient 
workmen.  In  this  resj>ect  they  may  be  likened  to  the  state-supported  con- 
vict, the  product  of  whose  work  in  the  prison  shop  lowers  the  wages  of  free 
men  regularly  employed.  It  is  largely  from  the  ranks  of  the  entirely  unor- 
ganized and  partially  subsidized  workers  that  the  professional  strike- 
breaker is  drawn. 

Trade  unionism  will,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  eventually  teach  society  its  full 
lesson  in  this  matter.  The  progress  of  trade  unionism  means  the  compara- 
tive lessening  of  the  group  l>elow  the  unions  and  the  more  obvious  recog- 
nition of  the  fact  that  it  consists  of  incapables.  Trade  unionism  must  con- 
tinue to  lift  up  this  great  submerged  mass  slowly  and  by  degrees,  and  the 


174  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

remainder  must  be  cared  for  by  the  State.  There  must  be  some  method 
of  relieving  industry  from  this  vast  incubus.  -It  would  pay  society  to  sup- 
port every  person  who  was  found  to  be  incapable  of  supporting  himself, 
rather  than  to  permit  these  men  to  secure  a  partial  and  incomplete  living 
as  at  the  present  time.  In  its  treatment  of  the  very  poor,  society  acts  like 
the  ostrich  which  buries  its  head  in  the  sand ;  it  attempts  to  remedy  the  evil 
by  refusing  to  recognize  it.  Everybody  in  society  must  be  supported  in 
some  way  or  other,  and  it  would  be  far  more  economical  to  adopt  a  definite 
policy  of  isolating  the  incapables  and  supporting  them  in  some  manner  or 
other  than  to  allow  them  to  be  a  drag  on  industry,  to  fill  our  sweat  shops, 
to  throng  our  streets  needlessly  selling  needless  articles,  to  beg,  steal,  or 
help  build  up  the  vicious,  hoodlum  element  in  our  great  cities.  The  prob- 
lem can  only  be  solved  by  an  extension  of  trade  unionism  which  raises  one 
class  after  another  from  this  mass  by  the  insistence,  through  trade  union 
action,  upon  a  minimum  wage  and  steady  work,  by  a  restriction  of  immi- 
gration to  men,  or  to  the  families  of  men,  capable  of  holding  a  steady  job, 
and  by  a  definite  determined  and  courageous  policy  on  the  part  of  the  State, 
looking  towards  its  direct  assumption  of  the  burden  of  supporting  these 
men,  which  burden  must  in  all  events  fall  upon  the  State  in  some  form  or 
other. 

The  elevation  of  these  groups  from  the  great  mass  of  the  unskilled 
and  unorganized  is  shown  in  the  development  of  federal  unions  organized 
by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  federal  union  is  the  kinder- 
garten of  trade  unionism.  It  is  the  ungraded  school  in  which  miscellaneous 
workmen  of  all  sorts  combine  and  from  which  group  after  group  is  raised 
and  organized  into  separate  and  independent  unions.  Just  as  the  separate 
unions  grow  out  of  federal  unions,  so  do  groups  of  organized  workmen 
grow  out  of  the  great  mass  of  the  unorganized  and  unskilled. 

It  is  frequently  predicted  that  the  success  of  trade  unions  in  organiz- 
ing unskilled  workmen  is  only  temporary  and  that  the  result  of  bad  times 
will  be  to  destroy  the  new  unions.  There  is  some  truth  in  this-  statement, 
although  it  is  greatly  exaggerated  and  magnified.  With  every  advent  of 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  175 

bad  times,  a  number  of  the  unions  which  have  grown  up  during  the  preced- 
ing periods  of  prosperity,  fall  to  the  ground,  yet,  nevertheless,  the  progress 
made  is  not  entirely  lost.  It  is  of  tenefit  to  a  man  to  hare  l>elonged  to  a 
union,  even  though  that  union  subsequently  die.  The  ideals  once  implanted 
in  the  breast  of  a  man  by  his  trade  union  live  longer  than  the  union  itself. 
Moreover,  while  unions  of  unorganized  workmen  are  frequently  weak  in- 
ternally and  are  subject  to  dissolution  in  times  of  prolonged  dqiression, 
these  organizations  grow  stronger  with  each  decade.  As  it  advances,  so 
does  the  wave  recede,  but  at  each  recession  the  low  water  mark  is  at  a  higher 
level.  The  unions  which  might  have  l>een  destroyed  by  a  commercial  de- 
pression twenty  years  ago  would  have  survived  one  ten  years  ago,  and  many 
which  would  have  died  ten  years  ago  would  survive  a  commercial  depression 
to-day.  There  are  unions  which  will  go  to  pieces  with  the  next  commercial 
depression  which,  formed  again,  will  in  the  not  remote  future  l>ecome  suf- 
ficiently strong  and  stable  to  withstand  any  possible  crisis  or  depression. 

Trade  unionism  advances  by  an  advance  of  all  its  parts.  The  men 
who  once  stood  on  the  lowest  rung  of  the  trade  union  ladder  have  mounted 
higher,  and,  in  turn,  have  made  room  for  men  from  lower  ranks  of  life. 
With  each  succeding  decade,  other  sections  of  workingmcn  from  lower  and 
lower  ranks  of  industrial  life  will  advance  toward  trade  unionism  and  will 
form  unions,  which  with  the  progress  of  years,  will  gradually  grow  in 
strength  and  increase  in  stability. 

In  this  advance  the  memlxTs  of  the  trade  union  world  should  act  as  a 
unit.  By  means  of  the  lal>el  and  the  l>oycott,  by  moral  and  financial  sup- 
port during  strikes,  by  sympathy  and  encouragement  at  all  times,  the  more 
skilled  workmen  can  aid  the  less  skilled  and  can  indirectly  promote  their 
own  welfare  by  promoting  the  welfare  of  their  less  fortunate  brethren. 


CHAPTER  XXI 
THE  IMMIGRANT  AND  THE  LIVING  WAGE 

Enormous  Influx  of  Immigrants.  857,000  in  One  Year.  The  Promised  Land  and 
the  Millions  of  Europe.  Ebb  and  Flow  of  the  Tide.  Change  in  the  Source  of  Immi- 
gration. The  Nationality  of  Immigrants.  Where  the  Immigrants  Go  and  What  they 
Do.  The  Congestion  of  Cities.  Opportunities  for  Immigrants.  The  Good  Side  of 
Immigration.  The  Evil  Side.  Regulation  Not  Prohibition.  The  Immigration  of.  Con- 
tract Laborers.  Chinese  Immigration  and  Chinese  Exclusion.  Illiteracy.  Assisted 
Immigration.  The  Foreign  Born  Citizens  of  the  United  States.  Immigration  and  the 
Living  Wage.  Immigration  and  Trade  Unionism.  The  Lowering  of  Wages.  Immi- 
gration and  Bad  Times.  The  Broadening  Waves  of  Influence.  Restriction  without 
Prejudice  and  without  Hatred.  The  Welfare  of  America  and  the  Good  of  All  Nations. 

HPHE  present  year  has  witnessed  an  immigration  to  this  country  greater 
A  than  any  that  has  ever  occurred  in  the  history  of  any  nation.  Dur- 
ing the  year  ending  June  30,  1903,  eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven  thousand 
people  from  various  parts  of  the  work!  landed  at  the  ports  of  the  United 
States  and  either  settled  in  the  sea-board  cities  or  made  their  way  into  the 
interior.  At  no  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  has  a  movement  of  such 
stupendous  proportions  taken  place.  The  immigrants  to  tkis  country  in 
the  single  year  1903  were  probably  much  in  excess  of  the  total  number  of 
arrivals  in  the  present  territory  of  the  United  States  during  the  two  cen- 
turies from  1607  to  T82O. 

The  movement  of  immigrants  from  Europe  to  the  United  States  dur- 
ing the  last  three  generations  has  dwarfed  by  comparison  all  former  move- 
ments of  populations.  During  this  period  over  twenty  million  immigrants 
have  landed  on  these  shores.  These  men,  hailing  from  all  the  countries  of 
Europe  and  of  the  world,  have  peopled  the  vast  territory  of  the  United 
States,  have  intermarried  with  one  another  and  with  the  native  stock,  and 
have  formed  the  American  nation  as  it  exists  to-day.  In  the  cities  of  our 
sea-board,  in  the  Middle  West,  on  thetrans-Mississippi  prairies,  and  through- 

(176) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  177 

out  the  broad  expanse  of  our  North-west,  in  almost  every  state  north  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  and  extending  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific, 
large  sections  of  the  population  are  either  foreign  born  or  the  children  of 
immigrants.  In  the  year  1900  there  were  over  ten  million  persons  in  the 
United  States  of  foreign  birth  and  over  twenty-six  million  of  for- 
eign birth  or  foreign  parentage.  About  two-fifths  of  all  the  white 
inhabitants  of  the  United  States  are  the  sons  or  daughters  of  parents 
one  or  both  of  whom  are  foreign  born.  These  immigrants  and  children  of 
immigrants  represent  some  of  the  best  elements  in  the  American  popula- 
tion, and  the  American  citizens  of  foreign  birth  and  parentage  are,  on  an 
average,  as  patriotic,  as  loyal,  and  as  valuable  citizens  as  those  of  native 
ancestry. 

The  tide  of  immigration  to  the  United  States  has  had  many  ebbs  and 
flows.  Immigration  has  steadily  increased,  reaching  a  maximum  point  in 
periods  of  prosperity  and  falling  off  greatly  in  periods  of  depression  In 
the  year  1854,  immigration  reached  a  high  water  mark  with  the  arrival  of 
four  hundred  and  twenty-eight  thousand  immigrants,  and  in  1882  seven 
hundred  and  eighty-nine  thousand  landed.  This  point  was  not  again 
reached  until  the  present  year,  1903,  when  eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven 
thousand  immigrants  arrived. 

Within  the  last  two  decades  a  change  has  taken  place  in  the  character 
of  immigration,  which  in  the  eyes  of  many  people  portends  evil  for  Ameri- 
can workmen.  In  the  early  years  of  immigration,  when  it  was  difficult,  if 
not  actually  dangerous,  to  come  to  the  United  States,  there  was  a  natural 
selection  of  the  best  and  hardiest  inhabitants  of  the  old  world,  men  willing 
to  risk  their  all  in  going  to  a  new  country.  The  greater  case  and  cheapness 
of  transportation  have  now  given  a  stimulus  to  large  classes  of  i>crsons  who 
in  former  years  could  not  have  come.  The  cost  of  transi>ortation  and  the 
time  required  have,  ujx>n  the  whole,  l>een  reduced,  and  the  sources  of  im- 
migration have-  also  shifted,  l-'ornu-rly.  the-  i^rcat  majority  of  immigrants 
came  from  England,  Ireland,  Germany,  and  the  Scandinavian  countries, 
12 


178  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

from  countries,  in  other  words,  where  conditions  of  life  and  labor  were, 
to  some  extent,  comparable  to  those  of  the  United  States.  At  the  present 
time,  the  source  of  immigration  has  shifted  from  northern  and  western  to 
eastern  and  southern  Europe,  and  from  men  with  a  higher  to  men  with  a 
lower  standard  of  living.  I  do  not  desire  to  state  that  the  moral  character 
and  mental  capacity  of  the  new  immigrants  are  lower  than  those  of  the  im- 
migrants of  former  days ;  but  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  standard  of  living  has 
been  reduced  in  consequence  of  the  change  in  the  source  of  immigration 
from  countries  in  which  wages  are  high  to  countries  in  which  wages  are  low. 
The  amount  of  money  which  the  average  immigrant  brings  with  him  has 
steadily  decreased,  and  the  immigrant  from  southern  and  eastern  countries 
has,  at  the  start,  a  smaller  sum  to  protect  him  from  starvation  or  the  sweat- 
shop than  has  the  immigrant  from  northern  or  western  Europe.  The  illit- 
eracy of  the  immigrant  has  also  become  more  pronounced.  This  illiteracy, 
amounting  in  some  cases  from  sixty-five  to  seventy-five  per  cent.,  debars 
the  newly  arrived  immigrant  from  many  trades,  makes  it  more  difficult  for 
him  to  adapt  himself  to  American  conditions  and  American  manners  of 
thought,  and  renders  it  almost  inevitable  that  he  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
sweater  and  exploiter.  The  efforts  made  by  steamship  companies  to  incite 
and  over-stimulate  the  immigration  of  thousands  of  illiterate  peasants  tend 
to  inject  unnaturally  into  the  American  labor  market  a  body  of  men  un- 
skilled, untrained,  and  unable  to  resist  oppression  and  reduced  wages. 

The  practically  unrestricted  immigration  of  the  present  day  is  an  in- 
justice both  to  the  American  workingman,  whether  native  or  foreign-born, 
and  to  the  newly  landed  immigrant  himself.  As  a  result  of  this  practically 
unrestricted  and  unregulated  immigration,  the  congestion  of  our  large  cities 
is  so  intense  as  to  create  abnormally  unhealthy  conditions.  In  New  York, 
which  has  at  present  a  foreign-born  population  of  over  one  and  one-quarter 
millions,  the  congestion  has  resulted  in  the  erection  of  enormous  tenement 
buildings,  in  the  fearful  overcrowding  of  the  slums,  and  in  the  normal  pres- 
ence of  an  over-supply  of  unskilled  labor.  The  arrival  in  great  numbers  of 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  179 

immigrants  without  knowledge  of  English,  without  the  ability  to  read  or 
write  the  language  of  their  own  country,  without  money,  and  sometimes 
without  friends,  renders  it  inevitable  that  they  accept  the  first  work  offered 
them.  The  average  immigrant  from  eastern  and  southern  Europe  brings 
with  him  from  eight  to  ten  dollars,  which  is  about  the  railroad  fare  from 
New  York  to  Pittsburg  and  is  hardly  sufficient  to  support  him  for  two 
weeks.  It  is  inevitable,  also,  that  he  remain  where  he  lands  and  take  the 
work  offered  him  on  the  spot.  The  result  is  a  supply  of  labor  in  the  large 
cities  in  excess  of  a  healthy  demand,  and  a  consequent  lowering  of  wages, 
not  only  in  the  cities  in  which  the  immigrants  remain,  but  in  those  in  which 
the  articles  are  produced  that  compete  with  the  sweat-shop  products. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  great  employers  of  labor  there  is  an  ap- 
parent advantage  in  keeping  the  doors  wide  open.  The  great  manufac- 
turers of  the  country,  \vhile  anxious  to  shut  out  the  products  of  the  paujxir 
labor  of  Europe,  desire  to  have  as  much  cheap  labor  within  their  own  fac- 
tories as  possible.  The  great  mine  owners  have  eagerly  taken  advantage 
of  the  ever-flowing  current  of  low-priced  labor,  not  only  to  reduce  wages, 
but  to  hold  this  reserve  army  of  unskilled  workers  as  a  club  over  the  head 
of  the  great  mass  of  employees.  The  immigrant,  who  comes  here  in  the 
hope  of  bettering  his  condition,  is  subjected  to  the  exhausting  work  of  the 
sweat  shop,  is  forced  to  toil  excessively  long  hours  under  unsanitary  con- 
ditions, or  is  compelled  to  perform  work  under  the  padrone  system,  and  is 
liable  to  Ix;  exploited  and  defrauded  in  many  ways.  The  apprenticeship  of 
the  newly  arrived  immigrant  is  hard  indeed,  but  it  could  very  well  be  rem- 
edied if  the  state  should  so  regulate  immigration  as  to  enable  the  new- 
comer to  protect  himself  from  extortion  and  exploitation. 

The  extent  to  which  immigration,  if  unrestricted,  might  go  was  fore- 
shadowed by  the  influx  of  Chinese  which  lx*gan  al>oiit  a  generation  ago. 
lror  a  number  of  years  the  doors  of  the  Unitctl  Stair*  were  thrown  wide- 
open  to  the  ini|K>rtation  of  immigrants,  practically,  if  tx>t  legally,  under 
contract,  from  a  country  with  a  jx>pulation  of  four  hundred  millions.  The 


180  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

result  of  this  immigration  was  seen  in  a  reduction  of  the  wages  of  labor 
upon  the  Pacific  coast;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  admission  of 
Chinese,  if  unchecked,  would  have  resulted  in  the  creation  of  an  enormous 
Mongolian  population  in  our  West  and  the  practical  industrial  subjugation 
of  that  portion  of  the  country  by  the  Chinese.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that 
the  cheaper  worker,  when  he'  is  able  to  compete  tends  to  drive  out  the  better, 
just  as  in  the  currency  of  a  nation,  bad  money  will  drive  out  good  money. 
Through  the  activity  of  the  trade  unions,  however,  the  Chinese,  were  in 
1882,  excluded  and  in  1902  this  law  was  reenacted. 

The  trade  unions  also  secured  in  the  year  1885  the  enactment  of  a  law 
rendering  illegal  the  importation  of  workmen  under  contract.  Formerly, 
in  the  case  of  a  strike,  the  employer  was  able  to  contract  for  the  importation 
of  large  numbers  of  foreigners,  who,  with  lower  ideals  and  without  any 
knowledge  of  American  trade  unionism,  took  the  places  of  the  strikers  and 
effectually  aided  the  employer.  The  trade  unions  have  also  been  energetic 
in  their  attempts  to  secure  a  further  regulation  of  the  conditions  of  immigra- 
tion in  such  a  manner  that  both  the  present  inhabitants  of  the  United  States 
and  the  immigrants  who  come,  will  be  in  a  better  position  to  resist  exploita- 
tion by  employers  in  the  sweated  or  unskilled  trades. 

The  attitude  of  trade  unionists  upon  this  question  favors  not  prohibi- 
tion, but  regulation.  The  trade  unions  do  not  desire  to  keep  out  immi- 
grants but  to  raise  the  character  and  the  power  of  resistance  of  those  who 
do  come.  There  is  no  racial  or  religious  animosity  in  this  attitude  of 
unionists.  The  American  trade  unionist  does  not  object  to  the  immigra- 
tion of  men  of  a  high  standard  of  living,  whether  they  be  Turks,  Russians, 
or  Chinese,  Catholics,  Protestants  or  Jews,  Mohammedans,  Buddhists,  or 
Confucians,  whether  they  be  yellow,  white,  red,  brown,  or  black.  In  certain 
cases,  as  in  that  of  the  Chinese,  it  was  absolutely  essential  to  the  success  of 
the  law  that  it  discriminate  against  the  whole  nation,  but  the  attitude  of  the 
unionist  was  not  hostility  to  the  Chinaman,  but  a  determination  to  resist 
the  immigration  of  men  with  a  low  standard  of  living. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  l8l 

The  trade  unionist  believes  that  the  policy  of  regulating  immigration 
is  justifiable  on  both  ethical  and  economic  grounds.  It  is  admitted  that  the 
immigration  of  the  past  has  to  a  large  extent  and  for  a  long  period  bene- 
fited the  American  workingman.  Especially  was  this  true  during  the 
period  before  the  public  domain  was  exhausted,  when  men  could  secure  a 
homestead  for  the  asking.  The  trade  unionist  also  realizes  that  a  large  per- 
centage of  the  most  worthy  citizens,  and  probably  a  majority  of  the  white 
manual  laborers  of  the  United  States,  are  either  foreigners  or  sons  of  for- 
eigners. The  American  unionist  sympathizes  with  the  oppressed  working- 
men  of  foreign  countries  and  feels  that  everything  should  be  done  to  amel- 
iorate their  condition,  provided  it  does  not  hinder  the  progress  of  the  nation 
and  the  welfare  of  the  human  race.  Cosmopolitanism,  like  charity,  begins 
at  home.  The  American  people  should  not.  sacrifice  the  future  of  the  work- 
ing classes  in  order  to  improve  the  conditions  of  the  inhabitants  of  Europe, 
and  it  is  even  questionable  whether  an  unregulated  immigration  would  im- 
prove the  conditions  of  Europe  and  Asia,  although  it  is  certain  that  it  would 
injure  and  degrade  the  conditions  of  lal>or  in  this  country. 

This  point  might  be  illustrated  by  the  supposition  of  an  unrestricted 
immigration  from  China.  That  country  has  a  population  of  alx>ut  four 
hundred  millions  and  a  probable  birth  rate  of  about  twelve  millions  a  year. 
It  is  quite  conceivable  with  unrestricted  immigration  and  with  the 
cheapening  of  fares  from  I  long  Kong  to  San  Francisco  that  within  fifty  or 
a  hundred  years  a  third  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  could  Ix?  Chinese, 
without  in  any  way  reducing  the  population  of  China.  The  creation  of  an 
outlet  for  a  million  or  two  millions  of  Chinese  immigrants  each  year  would 
merely  have  the  effect  of  increasing  the  birth  rate  in  that  country,  with  the 
result  that  within  a  century  a  majority  of  the  working  people  of  this  coun- 
try would  be*Chinesc,  \\hile  the  congestion  of  population  in  the  Celestial 
empire  would  be  as  great  and  as  unrelieved  as  ever.  To  a  large  extent  the 
progress  of  nations  can  best  be  secured  by  the  policy  of  seclusion  and  isola- 
tion. By  means  of  barriers  which  regulate,  but  do  not  prohibit,  immigra- 


182  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

tion,  the  various  countries  of  Europe  and  America  can  individually  work 
out  their  salvation,  and  a  permanent  increase  in  the  efficiency  and  remunera- 
tion of  the  workers  of  the  world  can  thus  be  obtained.  By  the  maintenance 
of  these  barriers  the  best  workingmen  in  each  country  can  rise  to  the  top, 
and  the  great  mass  of  the  workingmen  can  secure  a  larger  share  of  the 
wealth  produced.  If,  however,  it  is  within  the  power  of  employers  to  draw 
freely  upon  the  labor  of  the  world,  while  protecting  their  products  from  the 
competition  of  foreign  manufacturers,  the  result  will  be  that  the  working- 
men  of  the  world  will  have  their  wages  reduced,  or,  at  all  events,  will  not 
have  their  remuneration  increased,  as  would  be  possible  under  a  policy  reg- 
ulating the  importation  of  immigrants. 

The  trade  union  desires  to  regulate  immigration  partly  in  order  to 
prevent  the  temporary  glutting  of  the  market,  but  to  a  much  greater  extent 
in  order  to  raise  the  character  of  the  men  who  enter.  The  glutting  of  the 
labor  market  through  immigration  is,  I  believe,  temporary,  and  not  perma- 
nent. It  causes  a  temporary  over-supply  of  labor  in  the  large  cities,  a 
breaking  down  of  favorable  working  conditions,  a  disintegration  of  trade 
unions,  and  a  wide-spread  deterioration  and  degradation  in  large  circles  of 
the  community.  Gradually,  however,  the  market  absorbs  the  fresh  supply 
of  labor,  and  the  newly  arrived  immigrants  create  a  demand  for  the  pro- 
ducts of  their  own  work.  While  this  temporary  glutting  of  the  market  is 
disadvantageous  and  may  result  in  a  deterioration  of  the  calibre  of  the 
workingman,  the  injury  that  comes  from  permitting  the  inflow  of  vast 
bodies  of  men  with  lower  standards  of  living  is  infinitely  worse.  The 
policy  of  trade  unions  in  this  matter  of  immigration  is  in  perfect  harmony 
with  other  features  of  trade  union  government.  Trade  unionism,  seeks 
not  to  restrict  the  numbers,  but  to  raise  the  quality,  of  workingmen.  Any 
one  may  become  a  bricklayer  in  New  York  city,  whether  there  be  a  hun- 
dred, a  thousand,  or  five  thousand,  but  whosoever  enters  the  trade  as  a 
unionist  must  agree  not  to  accq)t  less  than  a  certain  rate  and  must,  there- 
fore, be  an  efficient  worker  with  a  high  standard  of  life.  The  American 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  183 

workingman  believes  that  there  is  ample  room  in  this  country  for  all  men 
who  are  able  and  willing  to  demand  wages  commensurate  with  the  Ameri- 
can standard  of  living. 

By  a  wise  policy  of  restriction  of  immigration  and  by  a  careful  sifting 
of  immigrants  according  to  their  ability  to  earn  and  demand  high  wages, 
the  country  would  secure  annually,  let  us  say,  two  or  three  or  four  hundred 
thousand  good  immigrants,  instead  of  being  forced  to  absorb,  as  at  present, 
six  or  eight  or  ten  hundred  thousand  immigrants,  many  of  them  undesir- 
able. The  result  of  this  policy  might  lead  eventually  even  to  an  actual  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  immigrants,  owing  to  the  fact  that  if  there  were  a 
\vi<c  selection  of  immigrants  with  a  high  standard  of  living,  wages  in  the 
United  States  would  rise  to  a  point  which  would  attract  the  most  capable 
workmen  of  all  Europe.  A  contingency  of  this  sort  would  be  looked  for- 
ward to  with  hojK.'  rather  than  with  apprehension,  since  the  American  na- 
tion need  never  fear  the  immigration  of  Europeans  so  long  as  that  immigra- 
tion does  not  involve  or  threaten  a  reduction  in  the  standard  of  living. 

The  competition  of  the  immigrant  with  a  low  standard  of  living,  is 
felt  not  only  in  the  trade,  wherein  the  immigrant  is  employed,  but  in  all  the 
trades  of  the  country.  The  immigrant,  with  his  low  rate  of  wages,  drives 
out  of  his  trade  men  formerly  employed  therein,  who  are  either  forced  down 
in  the  scale  of  wages  or  else  obliged  to  compete  for  work  in  higher  occupa- 
tion, where  they  again  reduce  wages.  Thus  the  effect  of  the  com|>elition  of 
immigrants  is  felt  not  only  in  the  unskilled,  but  also  in  the  semi-skilled  and 
skilled  trades,  and  even  in  the  professions.  The  immigration  of  great 
l.odies  of  unskilled  workmen,  moreover,  of  various  races  tends  to  promote 
and  ]K.*r|K:tuate  racial  antagonisms,  and  these  racial  jealousies  are  played 
upon  by  employers  in  the  attempt  to  reduce  wages,  to  prevent  the  forma- 
tion of  trade  unions,  and  to  keep  the  workmen  apart. 

1  do  not  desire  in  this  book  to  outline  what  1  consider  reasonable  meas- 
ures of  regulation  for  the  ever-rising  tide  of  immigration.  The  American 
Federation  of  Labor  has  done  excellent  work  in  advocating  wise  measures, 


1 84  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

and  the  work  should  be  continued  along  these  lines.  Restriction,  however, 
should  be  without  prejudice  and  without  hatred.  It  should  be  as  much  in 
the  interest  of  the  immigrants  as  in  the  interest  of  the  American  citi- 
zens of  to-day,  whether  of  native  or  of  foreign  birth.  Restriction 
should  l3e  democratic  in  its  character,  and  should  not  exclude  any  man  cap- 
able of  earning  his  livelihood  in  America  at  the  standard  union  rate  of 
wages.  It  should  not  be  directed  by  racial  animosity  or  religious  prejudice, 
and  the  laws  that  are  passed  should  protect  the  immigrant  from  deception 
by  steamship  or  employment  agents,  as  well  as  protect  the  home  population 
from  undesirable  immigrants.  The  law  should  be  so  arranged  as  not  need- 
lessly to  separate  members  of  the  same  family.  Finally,  trade  unionists  in 
their  advocacy  of  immigration  should  not  be  actuated  by  a  short-sighted 
policy,  but  by  a  consideration  of  the  probable  effect  that  such  restriction 
will  have  upon  the  future  prosperity  of  the  working  classes  or  of  Americans 
in  general. 

The  task  which  trade  unions  have  accomplished  in  securing  and  en- 
forcing laws  regulating  immigration  has  been  hardly  more  important  than 
their  excellent  work  in  raising  the  tone  and  increasing  the  efficiency  of  the 
immigrant  upon  his  arrival.  More  than  any  other  single  factor,  except  the 
common  school,  the  trade  union  has  succeeded  in  wiping  out  racial  ani- 
mosities, in  uniting  men  of  different  nationalities,  languages,  and  religions, 
and  in  infusing  into  the  newly  landed  immigrant  American  ideals  and 
American  aspirations.  The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  for  in- 
stance, has  had  marvellous  success  in  creating  harmony  and  good  feeling 
among  its  members,  irrespective  of  race,  religion,  or  nationality.  The  meet- 
ings of  the  locals  are  attended  by  members  of  different  races  and  are  ad- 
dressed in  two,  three,  or  even  more  languages.  The  constitution  and  by- 
laws of  the  organization  are  printed  in  nine  different  languages,  and  by 
means  of  interpreters  all  parts  of  the  body  are  kept  in  touch  with  one 
another,  with  the  result  that  a  feeling  of  mutual  respect  and  confidence  is 
promoted. 


- 

- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  185 

In  no  other  country  have  trade  unions  had  to  face  a  problem  of  such, 
enormous  difficulty  as  the  fusion  of  the  members  of  these  various  national- 
ities, crude,  unformed,  and  filled  with  old-world  prejudices  and  antipathies. 
Xo  higher  tribute  can  be  paid  to  American  trade  unions  than  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  magnificent  work  which  they  have  accomplished  in  this  di- 
rtction  in  obliterating  the  antagonisms  bred  in  past  centuries  and  in  creat- 
ing out  of  a  heterogeneous  population,  brought  together  by  the  everlasting- 
search  for  cheap  labor,  a  unified  people  with  American  ideals  and  Ameri- 
can aspirations. 


CHAPTER  XXII 
ORGANIZED  LABOR  AND  ORGANIZED  CAPITAL 

Organization  of  Capital  a  Justification  of  Trade  Unionism.  Capital  Follows  the 
Lead  of  Labor.  Principles,  Purposes,  and  Tactics  those  of  Labor  Unions.  The  Gen- 
eral Strike  and  the  General  Lockout.  The  Sympathetic  Strike  and  the  Sympathetic 
Lockout.  Disciplining  the  "Non-Union  Employer."  Internal  Dissension  in  Organiza- 
tions of  Employers.  Less  Loyal  than  Workingmeii.  Labor  Unions  not  Opposed  to 
Unions  of  Employers.  "The  Recognition  of  the  Union"  of  Employers.  Advantage 
of  Concerted  Action  on  both  Sides.  Employers'  Associations  Unincorporated.  Hos- 
tile Employers'  Associations  and  the  "Un-American  Institution  of  Trade  Unionism." 
Insurance  against  Strikes.  Peace  between  Organized  Labor  and  Organized  Capital. 

PERHAPS  the  fullest  recognition  of  the  power  and  necessity  of  trade 
unions  is  furnished  by  the  organization  of  employers.     Just  as  labor 
was  obliged  to  organize  in  order  to  secure  fair  terms  from  capital,  so  em- 
ployers have  found  it  advantageous  to  form  themselves  into  associations  ii. 
order  to  adjust  their  relations  with  their  workmen. 

In  the  matter  of  organization  workingmen  took  the  initiative  and  trade 
unions  originated  before  associations  of  employers.  In  fact,  the  trade 
unions  were  largely  instrumental  in  calling  employers'  associations  into  be- 
ing. This  earlier  formation  of  trade  unions  was  due  to  the  greater  feeling 
of  solidarity  and  brotherhood  among  wage  earners,  and  the  unorganized 
employers  found  themselves  at  a  disadvantage  in  their  dealings  with  their 
organized  workmen.  The  first  associations  of  employers,  like  the  first  as- 
sociations of  workingmen,  were  temporary  in  character  and  intended  to 
meet  special  emergencies.  Gradually,  however,  employers  learned  a  les- 
son from  their  workmen,  and  groups  or  associations  of  manufacturers  and 
other  employers  became  a  fixed  institution.  Many  of  these  associations  en- 
forced discipline  by  securing  from  each  member  a  deposit  of  funds  and  by 
fining  some  for  disobedience  to  their  rules  and  indemnifying  others  for 

(i  86) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  187 

losses  incurred  in  strikes  declared  against  them.  In  many  other  ways  the 
associations  of  employers  pursued  tactics  which  had  been  a  feature  of  trade 
union  policy.  In  the  case  of  a  threatened  dispute  between  one  of  their  mem- 
bers and  his  workmen,  the  associations  of  employers  investigated  it  and  de- 
cided upon  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  his  position  and  whether  or  not  they 
would  support  him  in  his  contest.  In  other  cases,  where  an  attack  was  made 
upon  a  single  firm,  all  other  members  of  the  association  were  ordered  to  lock 
out  their  employees,  whether  or  not  there  were  grievances  against  these 
employees.  Instead  of  the  system  of  picketing  and  boycotting  adopted  by 
workingmen,  the  associations  of  employers  occasionally  resorted  to  the 
blacklist,  sending  notices  broadcast  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  em- 
ployment of  striking  or  locked-out  workmen;  and  while  employers  now 
frequently  criticise  union  men  for  applying  opprobrious  epithets  to  non- 
unionists  who,  during  a  strike,  have  entered  the  field  and  taken  away  their 
means  of  livelihood,  the  jealousy  and  hatred  aroused  among  employers 
when  a  concern  turns  traitor  resolves  itself  into  curses  as  loud  and  as  deep. 
In  one  respect  associations  of  emplo\crs  are  stronger  than  trade  unions. 
The  former  have  the  advantage  of  greater  wealth  and  therefore  greater 
power  of  resistance,  and  by  reason  of  their  restricted  numbers,  can  act  with 
more  secrecy  than  organizations  of  workingmcn.  Notwithstanding  these 
advantages,  however,  the  associations  of  employers,  when  they  are  not  a 
trust  or  a  monopoly,  have  invariably  proved  to  be  weaker  than  associations 
of  workingmen.  They  have  had  the  same  or  even  greater  power  of  discip- 
lining the  non-union  or  "scab"  employer  by  expulsion  or  otherwise,  and  they 
have  l>een  able  to  use  the  power  of  ostracism  to  reinforce  pecuniary  penal- 
ties, but  in  spite  of  this,  these  associations  have  frequently  broken  down  or 
been  entirely  debilitated  by  internal  dissensions  and  trade  jealousies.  What- 
ever employers  may  say  a]>out  the  irresponsibility  and  unreliability  of  work- 
men and  trade  unions,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  su]>erior  strength  of  trade 
unions,  even  without  funds,  over  associations  of  employers  with  all  manner 
of  financial  backing,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  workingmen  show  better 


188  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

faith  and  more  honor  in  their  dealings  with  one  another  than  do  employers 
in  their  associations. 

Unions  should  not  adopt  an  antagonistic  policy  towards  organizations 
of  employers,  unless  such  organizations  show  themselves  distinctly  and  un- 
mistakably hostile  to  labor.  It  is,  of  course,  natural  that  where  trade 
unionists  are  assailed  they  should  endeavor,  as  far  as  possible,  to  limit  the 
power  and  avert  the  blows  of  their  assailants;  but  in  a  general  way  the 
trade  union,  in  the  matter  of  friendliness  to  employers'  associations,  sets 
an  example  to  the  employers  which  the  latter  could  advantageously  follow. 
There  are  many  employers  who  refuse  to  deal  with  trade  unions  because 
they  render  labor  more  formidable  and,  possibly,  more  exacting,  even  though 
they  realize  that  the  effect  of  trade  unionism  is  also  to  make  the  men  more 
reasonable  and  more  conservative.  Trade  unions  recognize  that  an  asso- 
ciation of  employers  is  better  able  to  combat  them  than  a  number  of  indi- 
vidual competing  employers ;  but  they  also  recognize  that  the  association  is, 
as  a  rule,  more  responsible,  more  conservative  and  better  disposed  than  the 
individual  employers  of  whom  it  is  composed.  The  incentive  to  oppress 
labor  is  less  strong  and  less  direct.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact  that  many  an 
employer  would  be  willing  to  do  things  in  his  own  shop  or  mine  which  he 
would  hesitate  to  submit  as  a  proposed  plan  of  action  to  the  members  of  his 
association.  In  many  cases,  organizations  of  employers  can,  by  the  very- 
fact  of  their  association,  make  concessions  to  their  workmen  which  none  of 
the  individual  employers  could  separately  have  made.  It  frequently  occurs 
that  no  one  employer  will  raise  wages  because  of  the  competition  of  other  em- 
ployers, whereas  if  all  are  united  into  a  single  organization,  it  is  possible  for 
them  to  make  this  concession  simultaneously. 

In  stating  that  trade  unionists  should  not  adopt  an  antagonistic  atti- 
tude toward  organizations  of  employers,  it  is  not  meant  that  they  should  not 
take  such  means  of  defense  against  aggressive  organizations  as  they  may 
deem  fit  and  proper.  Where  an  association  of  employers  is  formed  which 
has  for  its  object  the  rooting  out  or  crushing  of  trade  unionism,  the  unions 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  189 

would  be  perfectly  justified  in  meeting  attack  with  attack.  If  an  organiza- 
tion specifically  urges  that  ''employers'  associations  set  about  the  task  of 
pulling  up  root  and  branch  the  un-American  institution  of  trade  unionism 
as  at  present  conducted,"1  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  it  does  not  invite  and  will 
not  receive  the  hearty  cooperation  of  trade  unionists.  I  do  not  believe  that 
any  such  association,  even  if  formed  with  an  avowedly  hostile  policy  toward 
unions,  will,  in  the  long  run,  do  any  thing  but  good  for  the  trade  union 
movement.  An  association  of  employers  that  does  not  recogni/.e  the  essen- 
tial merits  and  advantages  of  trade  unions,  but  seeks  to  destroy  or  injure 
them,  will  sooner  or  later  be  confronted  with  the  absolute  undesirability  and 
impossibility  of  the  attainment  of  its  aims  and  will  either  change  its  attitude 
or  cease  to  exist.  Seme  of  these  organizations,  instituted  originally  for 
the  purpose  of  "fighting  labor."  have  been  persiuuled  by  the  logic  of  circum- 
stances into  adopting  at  first  a  tolerant  and,  finally,  a  distinctly  friendly  at- 
titude. 

In  many  cases  the  hostility  of  associations,  as  of  individual  employers, 
is  concealed  under  the  guise  of  a  plan  or  program  apparently  for  their  own 
protection,  but  really  directed  against  iabor  organizations.  For  some  time 
past,  there  has  l>een  considerable  talk  in  capitalistic  circles  of  a  system  »i" 
strike  insurance  by  which  employers  could  be  insured  against,  and  compen- 
sated for,  the  losses  occasioned  by  strikes.  This  is.  of  course,  merely  an  ex- 
tension of  the  general  idea  of  insurance.  The  plan  has  l>een  recommended 
by  a  number  of  newspajwrs,  including  several  insurance  journals.  ;m<l  ac- 
cording to  the  public  press  it  apj>ears  that  a  company  has  already  been  organ 
ized  for  the  purjx)se  of  insuring  employers  against  strikes. 

Three  arguments  may  l>e  urged  in  op])osition  to  such  a  plan  :  lirM,  that 
it  is  impracticable:  second,  that  it  would  fail  to  fulfill  its  purpose;  and  finally. 

'Quoted  from  the  Annual  Report  of  the  President  of  th<-  N'.itinnn!  A  «.«•••< -ia«i««n  ->f 
Manufacturers  of  the  Unite*]  StaUs  «.f  America.  April.  PJO.?.  Its  Presidmt.  Mr.  1>  M. 
Parry,  goes  on  to  .say  that  the  attack  should  be  ma«lc  ix-t  again -I  "unions  in  them- 
selves" but  against  modern  trade  unionism. 


Itp  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

that  it  would  probably  lead  to  unfairness  and  to  evils  worse  than  those  which 
it  sought  to  remedy.  A  company  of  this  nature  would  have  to  be  mutual, 
since  if  it  were  a  company  for  profit,  it  would  be  perfectly  possible  for  ad- 
verse unions  to  destroy  it  if  they  so  desired.  Whether  it  were  mutual  or 
not,  however,  there  would  always  be  dissension,  as  between  employers  in 
various  trades.  A  hardware  store  does  not  desire  to  assume  the  same  risk 
against  fire  as  a  manufacturer  of  chemicals  or  the  owner  of  a  powder  mill ; 
and  the  stove  manufacturers,  who  have  had  hardly  a  strike  for  twenty  years, 
would  not  be  willing  to  insure  against  strikes  on  the  same  basis  as  the  build- 
ing contractors.  There  would  be  constant  internal  trouble  with  regard  to 
the  fixing  of  assessments  and  premiums  and  the  determination  of  both  the 
physical  and  moral  risks.  As  in  fire  insurance,  many  risks  are  refused,  be- 
cause the  proprietor  is  believed  to  be  willing  to  burn  down  his  own  place,  so 
it  would  always  be  necessary  to  exclude  from  strike  insurance  men  who 
would  wish  to  have  strikes  and  be  compensated  for  them.  Many  men  who 
would  not  commit  arson  would  willingly  incite  strikes  at  their  own  works. 
and  it  would  be  precisely  those  industries  and  precisely  those  em- 
ployers who  were  most  fractious  and  strike  loving  who  would  most 
desire  insurance.  When  one  imagines  the  effect  of  such  a  strike  a? 
the  anthracite  suspension  of  1902  upon  an  insurance  company  of  this 
character,  however  large  its  capital,  the  utter  impracticability  of  the 
plan  will  be  realized.  At  the  first  call  for  assessments  the  member- 
ship of  the  company  would  rapidly  disappear.  Moreover,  such  an 
organization,  if  hostile  to  labor,  would  necessarily  be  secret,  since  otherwise 
its  members  could  be  punished  by  strikes  or  possibly  ruined  by  boycotts. 
Even  if  such  an  insurance  company  were  practicable,  it  would  not  work  for 
social  equity,  because  it  would  tend  to  support  strong  rather  than  just  em- 
ployers. 

Trade  unions  are  not  averse  to  an  insurance  of  employers  of  one  trade 
by  employers  in  the  same  trade,  since  in  this  development  they  see  nothing 
but  an  association  of  employers  banded  together  for  mutual  defense  and 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  191 

acting  on  the  same  principle  as  the  trade  unions.  It  is  true  that  trade 
unions  may  be  antagonistic  to  certain  individual  associations  of  employers 
on  account  of  their  expressed  or  covert  hostility,  but  it  is  merely  because  of 
this  hostility  and  not  because  of  the  organization  or  mutual  insurance  itself, 
that  the  unions  feel  resentment.  .Anything  which  aims  to  make  employers 
act  harmoniously  in  labor  matters  and  to  assume  moral  or  even  financial  re- 
sponsibility for  each  other's  action,  is  a  step  in  the  direction  of  a  final  settle- 
ment of  the  labor  problem.  I  do  not  believe,  however,  that  a  general  asso- 
ciation of  all  employers  is  any  more  practicable  than  a  general  association 
of  all  \\orkingmen.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  that  the  most  effective  or- 
ganizations of  either  employers  or  employees  are  those  which  limit  their 
membership  to  a  given  trade  or  industry ;  and  I  do  not  regard  general  insur- 
ance of  employers  against  strikes  as  any  more  practicable  than  general  in- 
surance of  workmen  against  lockouts  or  reductions  in  wages. 

In  the  case  of  employers,  organization  will  have  the  same  tendency  to 
widen  and  strengthen  moral  responsibility  as  it  has  had  among  workmen. 
It  frequently  happens  in  a  strike  that  some  of  the  employers  struck  against 
are  men  who  have  always  treated  their  employees  fairly  and  for  whom  their 
work  people  entertain  the  highest  feelings  of  regard  and  affection.  This  is 
unfortunate,  but  in  many  cases  inevitable.  The  position  of  the  employer 
who  thus  suffers  for  the  transgressions  or  omissions  of  his  fellow -employers. 
is  identical  with  that  of  the  workman  who  may  be  locked  out  <>n  account  <>t 
the  actions  of  other  workmen  over  whom  he  has  no  direct  control.  In  many 
cases  a  strike  or  a  lockout  to  be  effective  must  involve  the  whole  industry. 
The  good  employer  who  suffers  thereby  cannot  secure  relief  because  ot  hi- 
having  treated  his  workmen  fairly,  but  is  held  resjxmsible  by  the  course  of 
events  for  the  actions  of  other  employers.  In  industry,  as  in  life  generally, 
it  does  not  suffice  that  a  man  keep  his  own  skirts  clean.  The  tendency  of 
such  strikes,  however,  is  to  create  among  employers  a  recognition  of  the 
necessity  of  united  action  and  a  feeling  on  their  part  of  solidarity  and  of  re 
sensibility  for  one  another,  as  well  as  a  determination  upon  tin-  p.irt  <•:' 


iga  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

good  employers  that  their  fellow-employers  shall  maintain  the  same  fair 
conditions  that  they  themselves  maintain.  In  the  agreements  between  the 
bituminous  coal  miners  and  operators,  every  effort  is  made  by  employers  to 
raise  the  standard  of  fellow-employers  and  by  employees  to  raise  the  stand- 
ard of  fellow-employees.  The  trade  union  and  the  association  of  employers, 
the  representatives  of  organized  labor  and  organized  capital,  acting  together 
in  a  trade  agreement,  thus  work  for  a  higher  and  broader  justice  than  could 
be  attained  by  a  series  of  independent  and  separate  contracts  between  indi- 
vidual employers  and  individual  workmen. 

The  attitude  of  organized  workingmen  should  not  be,  and  as  a  rule  is 
not,  hostile  to  the  organization  of  employers.  True,  rare  instances  occur 
of  trade  unions,  generally  in  the  hey-day  of  their  youth  and  inexperience, 
assuming  a  superior  attitude,  refusing  to  have  anything  to  do  with  asso- 
ciations of  employers,  and  insisting  upon  treating  with  their  employers  "as  in- 
dividuals." Nothing  could  be  more  subversive  of  union  ideals,  nothing 
more  contrary  to  union  traditions.  Workingmen  in  asserting  their  right 
to  combine  are  obliged,  by  the  logic  of  their  own  demands,  to  concede  an 
equal  right  to  employers.  The  associations  of  employers  have  resulted  from 
the  formation  of  unions  of  workmen,  and  each  organization  should  be  of 
benefit  to  the  other.  Harmony  in  the  industrial  world  will  be  best  obtained 
by  the  creation  and  strengthening  of  labor  unions  and  employers'  associa- 
tions, and  by  the  inculcation  of  a  permanently  friendly  feeling  between 
organized  labor  and  organized  capital. 

One  of  the  most  potent  influences  in  establishing  amicable  relations 
l>etween  organized  labor  and  organized  capital  has  been  the  National  Civic 
Federation.  This  Federation,  composed  of  the  leading  public-spirited 
citizens  of  the  country,  has,  through  its  industrial  branch,  attempted  with 
much  success  to  create  friendly  relations  between  employer  and  employee. 
The  Federation  has  upon  its  various  committees  members  representing  the 
employers,  the  workmen,  and  the  general  public,  so  that  the  interests  of  all 
are  conserved  and  the  interests  of  none,  sacrificed.  The  Federation  has 


3      _• 


e       -^ 

c       ~ 


T. 

O          V, 


c.     _ 

^        X 


I  2 


n 

~      7- 

f»          -r 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 


193 


been  eminently  successful  in  a  number  of  attempts  to  create  better  feeling1 
and  to  avert  strikes,  and  as  long  as  it  pursues  its  present  policy,  it  will  un- 
doubtedly continue  to  deserve  and  receive  the  hearty  support  of  the  com- 
munity. 

Of  late  certain  sections  of  the  public  have  scented  danger  in  the  possibil- 
ity of  this  friendly  feeling  leading  up  to  an  offensive  coalition  of  organi/.cd 
labor  and  organized  capital  against  the  general  public.  If.  it  is  claimed, 
the  unions  agree  to  work  for  no  other  than  employers  organized  into  associa- 
tions, and  if  these  employers  agree  to  hire  none  but  union  men,  the  inevi- 
table result  will  be  that  non-union  men  and  independent  employers  will  l>e 
crushed  out.  As  a  consequence,  competition,  which  is  the  life  of  trade,  will 
cease  to  exist,  and  a  reign  of  extortionate  prices  and  unreasonable  charges 
will  be  inaugurated.  It  is  claimed  that  such  coalitions  already  exist  and 
that  by  means  of  combinations  between  furnishers  of  raw  material,  manu- 
facturers of  the  finished  product,  and  organizations  of  workmen,  the  public 
is  forced  to  pay  higher  prices  than  are  reasonable  or  just. 

Notwithstanding  these  fears,  combinations  of  labor  and  of  capital  are 
not  fraught  with  danger  to  the  public.     There  may  occasionally  arise  coali- 
tions  which   temporarily   extort   undue  and   unusual   profits,    but    such    a 
policy  cannot  be  permanently  successful.     The  mutual  recognition  of  tin- 
employers'  and  employees'  associations  and  the  agreement  by  these  associa- 
tions not  to  employ  or  IK*  employed  by  any  except  memlx-r^,  are  not  <1  m 
gerous,  but  arc  actually  beneficial  as  long  as  l>oth  the  union  anil   the  em 
plovers'  association  keep  their  doors  open  to  the  adnnV:oM  oi   :ie\\    mem 
bers.      In  the  coal  industry  any  man  who  has  a  mine  ma\  OIK.-II  it  and  mav 
join  the  coal  curators'  association,  and  any  man  uho  \\IMK-S  to  Uvome  a 
miner  may  join  the  organization  and  obtain  employment,      \\here  .1  -in 
ferent  policy  is  pursued  it  will  sooner  or  later  be  broken  <!o\\n.      li   cm 
ployers  cannot  enter  the  associations  on  fair  and  e-|!i.il  terms,  and  it  work- 
men cannot  get  into  the  unions  under  reasonable  conditions  the  result  will 
be  a  building  up  of  new  associations  of  non-association  employers,  operating 

12 


194  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

with  non-union  men,  who  will  be  able  to  compete  upon  equal  terms  with  the 
closed  corporations  employing  union  labor. 

I  do  not  believe,  however,  that  this  policy  of  extortion  will  be  tried 
u)K>n  any  large  scale.  While,  to  further  their  own  ends,  officials  of  the 
union  ma}'  consent  to  a  plan  of  this  sort,  the  great  body  of  union  members 
will  not  willingly  lend  themselves  to  a  clique  of  employers,  and  any  attempt 
to  create  and  perpetuate  a  monopoly  of  this  sort  will  be  quickly  frustrated. 

It  is  my  firm  conviction  and,  what  is  more  important,  it  is  the  convic- 
tion of  a  great  majority  of  the  workmen  of  this  country,  that  no  such  coali- 
tion of  organized  labor  and  organized  capital  can  or  will  permanently  ex- 
ploit the  public.  The  ideal  of  trade  unionism,  however,  will  be  attained 
when  a  strong  organization,  supplied  with  an  ample  reserve  fund  and  em- 
bracing every  workman  in  the  trade,  will  find  itself  face  to  face  with 
an  equally  strong  association  of  employers  embracing  every  employer 
in  the  trade.  The  two  will  then  meet  upon  the  basis  of  absolute  equality. 
The  result  of  such  a  state  of  affairs,  which  we  are  now  rapidly  approaching, 
will  be  that  without  incorporation,  whether  of  the  trade  union  or  the  asso- 
ciation of  employers,  the  agreements  arrived  at  will  be  kept  inviolate;  and 
thus  strikes  and  lockouts,  with  their  attendant  sufferings  and  losses,  will 
be  reduced  to  a  minimum,  and  peace  and  prosperity  firmly  established  in 
American  industry. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 
THE  UNION  AND  THE  TRUST 

The  Growth  of  Trusts.  Their  Origin  and  Nature.  Industrial  Combinations. 
Trusts  and  Public  Opinion.  Trusts  from  the  Standpoint  of  the  Consumer,  the  In- 
vestor, and  the  Workingman.  The  Trust  and  the  Cost  of  Production.  Trusts  and 
Workmen.  Trust  Prices  and  the  Cost  of  Living  to  the  Poor.  Trusts  and  Wages. 
Trusts  and  the  Organization  of  Labor.  The  Phantom  of  a  "Labor  Trust."  Are  Trade 
Unions  Monopolies?  The  Anti-Trust  Law.  Trusts  and  Publicity. 

THE  most  striking  feature  of  present  day  industry  is  the  trust.  During 
recent  years  there  has  been  a  sudden,  rapid  growth  of  industrial  com- 
binations upon  a  scale  wholly  unprecedented  and  hitherto  unimagined. 
These  gigantic  corporations,  with  capital  stock  aggregating,  in  some  cases, 
hundreds  of  millions  or  even  a  billion  of  dollars,  have  completely  trans- 
formed and  revolutionized  industrial  conditions.  The  competition  of 
former  times  has  given  way  to  combination,  consolidation,  and  "community 
of  interest,"  and  for  good  or  for  evil,  the  old  order  has  changed,  giving 
place  to  the  new. 

This  rapid  development  of  gigantic  corporations,  controlling  a  large 
proportion  of  the  output  of  industry,  has  given  rise  to  the  wildest  fears  and 
the  most  sanguine  hopes.  Upon  the  one  hand,  there  are  regrets  for  the  pass- 
ing of  a  former  period  of  competition  and  fears  of  what  the  new  era  may 
bring  forth.  The  trusts  are  assailed  because  of  their  largeness  and  their 
power.  It  is  alleged  against  them  that  they  adopt  secret  and  unscrupulous 
methods,  that  they  secure  rebates,  mercilessly  crush  out  rivals,  deprive  thou- 
sands of  their  livelihood,  indulge  in  wild-cat  financiering,  charge  extortion- 
ate prices,  defraud  and  mulct  investors,  corrupt  legislature's,  and  in  every 
way  imperil  the  rights  and  lilxrrties  of  the  American  people.  ( )n  the  other 
hand,  there  is  unbounded  hope  and  unlimited  confidence  in  the  new  combin- 

(195) 


196  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ations.  and  the  trusts  are  lauded  for  producing  needful  articles  in  a  more 
economical  manner  than  heretofore,  for  doing  away  with  ruinous  competi- 
tion, for  substituting  a  responsible  concern  for  a  number  of  less  trustworthy 
separate  or  independent  companies,  and  for  introducing  modern  methods 
into  the  conduct  and  management  of  business. 

\Yhatever  the  advantages  or  disadvantages,  the  merits  or  faults  of 
trusts  as  they  exist  to-day,  it  is  jnevitable  that  industrial  combinations  con- 
tinue to  exist.  The  industrial  organizations  of  the  future  may  not  be  run 
in  the  same  way,  or  with  the  same  freedom,  or  for  the  same  purposes  as  at 
the  present  time,  and  it  is  probable  that  eventually  they  will  be  under  a  more 
effective  control  by  the  government.  Some  form  of  industrial  combina- 
tion, however,  is  inevitable.  The  system  of  competition,  which  for  many 
decades  reigned  supreme,  has  now  to  a  certain  extent  destroyed  itself,  or 
rather  has  changed  its  scope  and  its  direction.  Free  and  uncontrolled  com- 
petition has  in  many  phases  of  industrial  life  been  weighed  in  the  balance 
and  found  wanting.  It  is  now  seen  that  in  the  case  of  railroads,  street  rail- 
ways, telegraph,  telephone,  gas  works,  and  many  other  industries,  men  will 
not  compete  where  they  can  combine.  Competition  in  many  industries  has 
proved  itself  wasteful.  It  has  led  to  the  wildest  excesses  of  production,  has 
created  alternating  periods  of  exaggerated  prosperity  and  extreme  depres- 
sion, and  has  forced  men  to  produce  in  the  dark,  to  furnish  the  supply  with- 
out being  able  to  calculate  the  demand. 

The  great  industrial  combinations,  if  properly  organized,  would  have 
a  number  of  advantages.  They  could  purchase  their  raw  material  in  much 
larger  quantities,  or  could  themselves  produce  it.  They  could  also  sell 
their  articles  in  the  same  wholesale  manner  and,  therefore,  more  cheaply 
and  more  intelligently.  The  production  of  the  country,  both  as  to  quantity 
and  quality,  could  be  regulated  according  to  the  demand,  and  the  factories 
or  mills  might  be  situated  in  the  locality  most  advantageous  for  supplying 
the  market.  Operating  expenses  could  be  reduced  in  consequence  of 
the  volume  of  business,  and  the  entire  industry,  if  controlled  by  one  organi- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  197 

zation,  could  wisely  regulate  conditions  of  production  so  as  to  decrease 
the  effect  of  any  depression.  Further,  a  corporation  controlling  a  given  in- 
dustry could  carry  on  experiments,  install  expensive  machinery,  and  equip 
its  factories  in  a  manner  impossible  to  a  single  competing  firm.  It  could 
specialize  its  products,  initiate  new  methods  of  production,  and,  by  reason 
of  its  very  largeness,  could  protect  and  insure  itself  against  fire,  or  against 
any  other  wide-spread  calamity.  The  absence  of  competition  would  save 
the  corporation  from  the  necessity  of  making  unprofitable  sales  or  accepting 
bad  credits,  and  would  allow  a  better  adjustment  and  adaptation  of  the  pro- 
ducts to  the  needs  of  the  community.  The  advantage  which  a  large  con- 
cern now  has  over  a  small  one  would  accrue  in  still  greater  measure  to  a 
well-managed  industrial  combination  controlling  the  whole  industry.  The 
larger  the  plant  and  the  greater  the  number  of  plants,  the  greater  is  the  op- 
portunity for  comparative  tests  of  methods,  for  a  wisely  regulated  compe- 
tition within  the  combination,  and,  in  general,  for  a  more  efficient  manage- 
ment of  the  whole  plant.  An  intelligently  directed  industrial  combination 
could  reduce  prices,  insure  a  safe  investment  for  the  savings  of  the  people, 
pay  high  wages,  and  grant  favorable  conditions  of  lalx>r,  while,  at  the  same 
time,  paying  to  the  men  in  charge  munificent  salaries  for  their  services  in 
creating  and  conducting  the  combination. 

I  have  above  described  trusts  as  they  might  be,  not  as  they  are.  The 
actual  industrial  combinations  have  not  always  effected  every  possible 
economy.  They  have  been  managed  sometimes  inefficiently,  sometimes 
dishonestly;  the  individual  manufacturer  has  in  many  cases  been  supplanted 
by  an  official  with  no  interest  in  the  establishment ;  and  the  profits  derived 
from  large  combinations  have  frequently  been  diverted  from  the  stock- 
holders to  the  pockets  of  an  inside  ring.  Many  of  these  combinations  have 
been  enormously  over-capitalized,  and  the  profits  of  future  years  have  l>een 
monopolized  in  advance  by  the  promoters  of  tl  .  trust.  In  many  cases,  the 
trusts  have  shirked  the  publicity  which  they  owed  to  the  public,  and  in  a 
number  of  instances  they  have  shown  a  hostility  to  the  workingmen  and  to 


I9g  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

labor  organizations  as  short-sighted  as  their  other  methods  of  obtaining 
temporary  gain  at  the  expense  of  permanent  advantage. 

The  trust  question  is  not  whether  we  shall  have  industrial  combinations 
but  how,  in  what  manner,  and  to  what  extent,  trusts  shall  be  regu- 
lated by  the  government.  The  anti-trust  laws  and  other  measures  directed 
against  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade  or  of  competition  are  reactionary 
and  utterly  futile.  We  can  no  more  stop  the  tendency  toward  .industrial 
combination  than  we  can  sweep  back  the  waves  of  the  sea.  The  continued 
existence  of  industrial  combinations  in  some  form  or  other  is  absolutely  as- 
sured, but' the  question  agitating  the  people  is  the  amount  of  control  which 
the  public  shall  maintain  over  these  organizations  and  the  proper  manner 
of  directing  their  gigantic  activities  into  profitable  and  beneficent  channels. 

There  are  three  points  of  view  from  which  the  trust  question  may  be 
approached — those  of  the  investor,  the  consumer,  and  the  wage  earner.  The 
investor  realizes  that  in  some  form  or  other,  whether  he  invests  in  the  stocks 
of  industrial  combinations,  in  the  savings  bank,  or  in  life  insurance,  his  cap- 
ital must  eventually  be  invested  in  the  industries  of  the  country.  The 
proper  management  of  industrial  combinations  affects  the  rate  of  interest 
upon,  and  the  security  of,  all  investments,  in  whatever  form  they  are  made, 
since  the  great  bulk  of  the  capital  of  the  country  must  sooner  or  later  be 
invested  in  industry,  and  the  capital  invested  in  other  forms,  such  as 
houses,  real  estate,  etc.,  will  be  affected  by  the  rate  of  interest  and  the 
security  of  investments  made  in  the  great  industries.  Unfortunately  it  is 
a  fact  that  even  while  the  country  is  enjoying  a  period  of  unexampled  pros- 
perity, the  ordinary  man  with  small  capital  cannot,  on  account  of  the  ignor- 
ance in  which  he  is  kept,  obtain  an  opportunity  for  investment  at  once  safe 
and  remunerative.  The  man  with  small  income  is  invited  to  invest  his 
funds  in  large  combinations  many  times  over  capitalized,  only  to  find  after 
a  few  years  that  dividends  cease  and  the  value  of  his  dearly  bought  stock  de- 
clines. The  trust  problem  may  also  be  approached  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  consumer.  If  the  trust  is  enabled  to  secure  economies  in  production, 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  199 

the  result  should  be  manifested  in  reduced  prices.  But  it  is  felt  that  in  the 
past  this  has  not  taken  place  to  the  extent  which  might  have  been  expected. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  the  wage  earner,  the  trust  problem  is  of  interest, 
since  the  amalgamation  of  competing  employers  may  have  the  effect  of  rais- 
ing or  lowering  wages,  of  increasing  or  decreasing  the  field  of  employment, 
and  of  granting  or  withholding  from  the  workingman  a  larger  or  smaller 
share  in  the  determination  of  the  conditions  of  his  work. 

The  wage  earners  of  the  country  are  interested  in  the  trust  problem 
from  all  three  points  of  view.  They  are  interested  to  a  slight  extent  as  in- 
vestors, to  a  greater  extent  as  consumers,  and  to  a  still  greater  extent  as 
wage  earners.  About  one  year  ago,  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation, 
doubtless  with  the  best  of  motives,  granted  to  its  employees  the  right  to  pur- 
chase a  certain  amount  of  its  preferred  stock  at  $82.50  per  share.  Many 
workmen  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity,  under  the  belief  that  the 
stock  they  purchased  would  maintain,  if  not  increase,  its  value.  At  the 
present  time  (September  28,  1903)  this  stock  is  selling  for  $59.25  per  share, 
ami.  as  a  consequence,  if  one  of  these  workmen  were  to  sell  his  stock  at  mar- 
ket value  he  would  receive  $23.25  less  per  share  than  he  paid  for  it.1 

The  \\orkiiigmen  of  the  country  are  interested  in  securing  for  them- 
selves and  other  small  investors  an  opportunity  to  place  their  savings  in  a 
reasonably  secure  and  profitable  manner,  and  any  policy  which  looks  toward 
rendering  the  attitude  of  trusts  to  their  investors  more  responsible  would  re- 
ceive the  favor  of  the  trade  unions. 

To  a  greater  extent  than  ever  l>efore  workingmen  have  become  con- 
sumers uj)on  a  large  scale,  and  as  purchasers  of  trust  goods,  therefore,  they 
are  greatly  interested  in  the  trust  problem.  The  wages  of  the  workingman 
are  measured  in  the  final  instance,  not  by  the  mere  amount  of  money  ccn- 


'  I  <!<>  not  mean  to  belittle  the  offer  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation.  The 
proposition  was  doubtless  generous  and  intended  to  benefit  the  men,  but  the  fluctua- 
tions in  the  value  of  the  stock,  as  a  result  of  conditions  over  which  the  workmen  had 
no  control,  indicate  one  of  the  worst  features  of  cooperation. 


2<x>  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

tained  in  his  envelope,  but  by  what  that  money  will  buy.  If  the  interests 
of  the  country  are  to  be  monopolized  and  to  be  beyond  the  control  of  the 
law,  it  is  possible  that,  despite  economy  of  production,  prices  will  rise  and 
the  cost  of  living  to  workingmen  be  increased.  Fear  of  potential  competi- 
tion may,  perhaps,  keep  industrial  combinations  from  unduly  raising  prices, 
and  prices  may  be  maintained  at  a  low  level  in  order  to  prevent  other  capi- 
tal from  entering  the  field.  It  is  not  wise  or  safe,  however,  to  trust  to  the 
generosity  or  enlightened  self-interest  of  the  men  in  control  of  these  indus- 
tries, and  the  fullest  publicity  should  be  afforded,  so  that  workingmen,  as 
well  as  other  citizens,  may  know  what  prices  are  being  charged  and  what 
prices  are  reasonable. 

The  most  vital  interest  of  workingmen,  particularly  of  organized  work- 
ino-men   in  the  new  industrial  combinations,  is  the  attitude  which  the  trusts 

o 

will  adopt  toward  the  men  in  their  employ.  Wages,  it  was  once  feared, 
would  fall  when  the  number  of  employers  in  a  given  industry  was  reduced 
by  the  formation  of  these  industrial  combinations,  but  this  result  is  not  in- 
evitable, or  even  probable.  The  wages  of  workingmen  are  influenced,  not 
by  the  number  of  employers,  but  by  the  amount  of  employment,  and  it  is 
net  probable  that  the  amount  of  profitable  employment  will  be  decreased 
by  the  creation  of  combinations.  Moreover,  it  has  been  feared  that  great 
Ixxlies  of  men  might  be  permanently  displaced,  but  this  dread  also  is  not 
well  founded.  The  creation  of  industrial  combinations  has  the  same  effect 
upon  the  demand  for  labor  as  has  the  invention  of  machinery.  It  causes 
temporary  displacements  of  labor,  forces  many  men  to  lose  their  positions 
for  the  time  being,  but  in  the  end  does  not  apparently  reduce  the  scope  of, 
or  opportunity  for,  employment. 

A  more  reasonable  fear  entertained  by  the  wage  earners  is  that  trusts, 
by  reason  of  their  enormous  strength,  may  be  able  and  willing  to  oppress 
the  workingmen  in  their  employ.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  trusts  are 
immensely  stronger  than  the  individual  members  entering  the  combination, 
since  they  have  the  advantage  of  unified  management  and  are  not  deterred 
in  a  struggle  with  labor  by  fear  of  competitors.  Moreover,  where  the  trust 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  291 

lias  a  number  of  plants,  of  which  some  are  unionized  and  others  not,  it  may 
play  off  the  non-union  shops  against  the  union  establishment,  or  pit  one  sec- 
tion against  another.  When  in  1899  the  men  employed  in  the  Colorado 
smelters  struck  for  better  conditions,  the  American  Smelting  and  Refining 
Company  temporarily  transferred  its  production  from  its  union  to  its  non- 
union establishments,  and  the  strike  collapsed.  During  the  course  of  the 
steel  strike  of  1901,  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  simply  concen- 
trated its  production  in  shops  where  the  union  was  weak  or  non-existent, 
and  even  threatened  to  dismantle  certain  plants  where  the  unionists  were 
in  control.  The  possibility  of  injuring  or  black-listing  an  individual  em- 
ployee, or  group  of  employees,  is  also  increased  when  the  various  establish- 
ments are  under  one  management.  In  law,  a  blacklist  does  not  exist  unless 
there  is  a  conspiracy  of  separate  persons  with  the  object  of  preventing  a 
man  from  obtaining  employment;  but  where  all  the  opportunities  of  work- 
are  under  the  control  of  a  single  concern,  the  same  result  may  be  obtained 
without  technical  violation  of  the  law. 

The  lesson  which  the  labor  union  should  learn  from  the  trust  is  the  ab- 
solute necessity  of  complete  organization  upon  a  national  scale.  No  union 
has  tiic  slightest  hope  or  chance  of  success  in  its  struggle  with  a  trust,  unless 
it  is  completely  organized  and  covers  the  whole  field.  Competition  be- 
tween the  non-union  and  union  establishments  of  a  trust  may  l>e  as  severe 
and  destructive  to  the  wage  scale  and  to  union  conditions  of  labor  as 
competition  of  unionists  and  non-unionists  within  the  same  shop.  A  strike 
by  a  union  against  a  trust  which  has  non-union  shops  merely  transfers  the 
profits  of  the  trust  from  one  pocket  to  another  and  the  wages  of  the  im-n 
from  the  unionists  on  strike  to  the  non-unionists  not  on  strike.  X<>  union 
can  effectively  enforce  proper  conditions  of  work  in  an  industry  controlled 
by  a  trust,  unless  it  is  at  least  co-extensive  with  the  trust  itself. 

The  attitude  of  the  great  industrial  combinations  ot  the  country  is  not 
yet  sufficiently  clear  to  enable  one  to  prophesy  with  confidence  as  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  will  conduct  themselves  toward  trade  unionism.  It  is 
evident,  however,  that  at  least  a  large  nutnl>er  of  the  men  in  control  of  in- 


202  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

dustrial  combinations  are  opposed  to  dealing  or  treating  with  labor  organ- 
izations. This  is  unfortunate,  not  only  for  the  labor  union,  but  even  more  so 
for  the  trust.  The  trust,  by  reason  of  its  comprising  the  great  majority  of 
the  plants  in  the  industry,  is  enabled  to  treat  on  more  favorable  terms  with 
labor  than  could  a  separately  competing  manufacturer.  The  trust  cannot 
refuse  to  raise  wages  or  improve  conditions  by  reason  of  the  fear  of  com- 
petition, and  it  has  the  power  of  rendering  any  agreement  that  it  makes 
with  workingmen  general  and  universal  throughout  the  trade.  On  the 
ether  hand,  by  opposition  to  trade  unionism,  industrial  combinations  will 
endanger  their  own  future.  The  public  is  beginning  to  realize  that  trade 
unions  represent  one  of  the  chief  bulwarks  of  democracy,  and  in  a  conflict 
between  a  trust,  apparently  autocratic,  and  a  union  of  employees,  struggling 
for  democratic  institutions,  the  sympathies  of  the  public  will  be  with  the 
latter. 

If  it  comes  to  a  conflict  between  the  trust  in  its  present  form  and  the 
labor  union,  the  trust  will  not  be  the  victor.  It  is  possible,  though,  I  think, 
not  probable,  that  the  trust  might  be  able  in  a  number  of  industries  to  root 
out  the  unions  at  least  temporarily ;  but  the  victory  would  be  a  boomerang, 
which  would  rebound  with  destructive  force  against  the  conqueror.  So 
long  as  workingmen  in  their  trade  unions  can  find  a  solution  of  the  prob- 
lems which  beset  them,  just  so  long  will  they  adopt  the  conservative  and 
unaggressive  policy  toward  industrial  combinations  which  they  have 
hitherto  maintained.  If,  however,  it  were  to  be  demonstrated  that  trusts 
were  bent  upon  the  destruction  of  the  legitimate  aspirations  of  workingmen, 
if  it  were  once  to  be  felt  by  the  community  that  the  trusts  were  tending  to 
become  autocratic  and  despotic  rings  of  large  capitalists,  tyrannizing  over 
and  fleecing  the  men  who  provided  the  capital,  the  men  who  provided  the 
labor,  and  the  men  who  purchased  the  products,  the  reign  of  this  class  of 
leaders  would  be  short-lived.  I  believe  that  in  the  long  run  nothing  which 
obstructs  the  general  will  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  can  be  main- 
tained. The  trusts  must  respect  the  interests  of  the  workingmen,  of  the 
stockholders,  and  of  the  consumers,  and  if  they  fail  to  do  so,  if  they  antag- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  203 

onize  all  or  any  of  these  classes,  their  doom  is  absolutely  and  irrevocably 
sealed. 

As  before  stated,  I  do  not  believe. that  the  trusts  should  be  proceeded 
against  as  trusts,  or  because  they  are  trusts,  but  simply  and  solely  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  prevent  abuses.  Trusts  are  not  bad  because  they  prevent 
or  change  competition.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  merely  transform  the 
field  of  competition  from  without  to  within  the  trust,  and  their  potency  for 
good,  if  well-managed,  is  almost  immeasurable.  The  Anti-Trust  Law  of 
1890  and  other  laws  like  it  are  blind,  unthinking  attempts  to  recon- 
struct conditions  irredeemably  gone.  The  fact  that  several  of  the  anti- 
trust laws  have  been  used  against  legitimate  combinations  of  workingmen 
in  no  wise  monopolistic,  shows  clearly  that  the  very  essence  of  this  legisla- 
tion is  wrong. 

The  essential  feature  of  trust  legislation  must  be  compulsory  pub- 
licity. The  old  idea  that  a  man's  business  is  nobody  else's  business  has 
been  entirely  exploded  by  the  creation  of  trusts,  the  business  of  which 
vitally  affects  the  welfare  of  ever)-  man  in  the  community.  The  fullest  light 
should  be  thrown  iij)on  these  combinations,  and  the  ]>eople  of  the  United 
States  should  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with  their  anatomy  and  physi- 
ology. Xot  only  the  amount  and  method  of  capitalization,  the  disposition 
of  funds,  the  prices  of  raw  materials,  the  cost  of  production,  the  amount  of 
railroad  charges,  the  rates  of  wages,  but  every  other  fact  connected  with 
the  management  of  the  business  in  any  one  of  its  details  should  be  perfectly 
clear  and  manifest.  The  right  of  the  government  at  any  lime  to  inspect 
any  and  all  of  the  lxx>ks  of  the  trust,  or  those  of  any  of  its  constituent  com- 
panies, should  l)c  established  and  maintained.  So  long  as  we  know  what 
is  happening  within  these  huge  combinations,  to  which  we  contribute  our 
savings,  devote  our  labor,  and  pay  for  our  purchases,  so  long  as  we  may  in- 
form ourselves  uix>n  each  and  every  action  taken  by  them,  we  need  not 
fear  the  existence  of  great  evils,  or  at  least  wr  may  be  a-Mired  of  knowing 
how  to  correct  them  when  they  laconic  api^irent.  The  jK-ople  of  the 
United  States,  irrespective  of  party,  should  insist  upon  the  fullest  publicity 


204  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

being  given  to  each  and  every  act  of  each  and  every  industrial  combination, 
to  the  end  that  the  interests  of  the  investors,  the  interests  of  the  consumers, 
and  the  interest  of  the  wage  earners  be  safeguarded. 

It  is  claimed  by  many  that  the  trade  union  is  in  itself  a  trust,  and  the 
phantom  of  a  vast  trust  monopolizing  the  labor  of  the  country  has  terrified 
a  number  of  newspaper  editors.  If  by  this  is  meant  that  labor  is  organiz- 
ing in  such  a  manner  as  to  deal  collectively,  it  may  freely  be  acknowledged. 
If,  however,  it  is  meant  that  trade  unions  are  building  up  a  monopoly,  then 
it  is  entirely  false. 

Monopoly  is  the  policy  of  the  closed  door  with  the  monopolist  and  the 
key  inside.  The  policy  of  trade  unionism  is  the  open  door  without  a  key. 
Trade  unionism  stands  for  unity  and  solidarity,  but  not  for  monopoly.  A 
trade  union  is  no  more  a  monopoly  than  are  the  public  schools,  which  any 
child  may  enter.  Any  wage  earner  who  wishes  to  join  a  labor  organization 
can  do  so  upon  practically  the  same  terms  as  those  upon  which  men  already 
in  were  admitted ;  and  the  members  who  are  now  in  will  have  no  advantage 
over  those  who  enter  at  any  future  time.  The  men  who  capitalized  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  are  not  willing  that  any  other  individual  should  buy 
their  stock  at  the  price  which  the  originators  of  the  company  paid  for  it. 
No  one  may  enter  the  company  on  the  terms  on  which  Mr.  Rockefeller  en- 
tered it.  The  great  monopolies  have  capitalized  their  franchises  and  im- 
mersed them  in  water.  The  trade  unions,  on  the  contrary,  have  nothing 
which  is  not  free  to  all,  which  may  not  be  shared  by  any  and  every  capable 
workman.  The  American  unionists  have  invested  in  their  organizations 
a  large  capital  composed  of  gratuitous  efforts  and  unrecorded  sacrifices, 
but  those  who  have  been  faithful  from  the  beginning  are  willing  to  throw 

o  o  o 

open  the  door  to  those  who  wish  to  enter  at  the  eleventh  hour.  If  this  is 
monopoly,  the  enemies  of  unionism  may  make  the  most  of  it. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 
,  UNIONS  AND  POLITICS 

Political  Methods  and  Industrial  Methods.  A  Separate  Labor  Party  Inadvisable. 
Concessions  from  the  Dominant  Parties.  Labor  Leaders  in  the  Legislatures.  Politi- 
cal Duties,  not  Political  Preferment.  The  Advantage  of  Political  Isolation.  The  Policy 
of  Position  grabbing.  Its  Dangers.  The  Necessity  of  a  better  Political  Organization 
for  Workii  gmen.  Political  Needs  of  Labor.  Industrial  Organization  by  Industries — 
Political  Organization  by  Territorial  Districts.  The  Strengthening  of  the  American 
Federation.  'I  he  State  Federation  and  the  City  Central  Bodies.  Program  and  Prop- 
aganda. The  Unionist  at  the  Polls  and  in  the  Primaries.  Summary. 

TRADK  unionism  can  secure  its  legitimate  aims  in  two  ways,  by  indus- 
trial methods,  that  is,  by  strikes,  Ixvycotts,  or  peaceable  negotiation 
with  employers,  or  by  political  methods,  that  is,  by  action  on  the  part  of  the 
state. 

Much  controversy  has  arisen  concerning-  the  wisdom  of  the  participa- 
tion of  trade  unions  in  jx)litics.  The  diversity  of  opinion  concerning  this  mat- 
ter is  due  to  the  vagueness  of  thought  upon  the  whole  subject.  The  very  men 
who  claim  that  unions  should  not  engage  in  politics  advocate,  and  actually 
secure,  reforms  through  jx>litical  action.  The  reason  of  this  apparent  dis 
crepancy  is  that  they  do  not  distinguish  between  various  kinds  of  political 
action.  There  are  certain  steps  in  politics  which  it  would  be  wise  for  unions 
to  take  and  other  activities  which  all  unions  should  avoid. 

There  can  be  no  question  of  tin-  advisability  of  unionists  being  repre- 
sented in  the  councils  of  the  nation.  The  only  possible  question  is  the 
method  and  manner  of  that  representation.  A  certain  section  of  the  work- 
ing class  population  Ixrlieve  that  workingmcn  have  interests  that  cannot  bo 
harmonized  with  those  of  other  classes  of  society  and  that,  as  a  consequence, 
a  labor  party  should  Ije  created,  which  would  devote  itself  entirely  to  the 

i  205 ) 


206  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

purpose  of  securing  labor  reforms.  This  plan  of  action  might  be  advisable, 
if  political  conditions  in  America  were  like  those  in  France  or  Germany, 
where  the  votes  of  the  country  are  divided  among  a  dozen  or  more  different 
parties,  each  representing  the  interests  of  more  or  less  distinct  classes.  In 
France,  as  in  Germany,  the  welfare  of  the  working-men  might  perhaps  be 
best  conserved  by  the  creation  of  a  separate  political  party  devoted  exclu- 
sively to  labor  interests.  Even  though  this  party  were  not  sufficiently  strong 
to  commit  the  government  to  a  strictly  labor  policy,  it  might  be  pow- 
erful enough  to  secure,  in  conjunction  with  other  parties,  some  measure  of 
legislative  protection  for  workingmen. 

Conditions,  however,  in  the  United  States,  as  apparently  in  Eng- 
land, are  entirely  different  from  those  existing  in  France  or  Germany.  In 
the  United  States,  there  are,  practically  speaking,  but  two  parties,  the  Re- 
publican and  the  Democratic,  and  the  entire  electoral  vote  for  the  president 
is  usually  divided  between  these  two.  There  are,  of  course,  a  number  of 
other  parties,  such  as  the  Socialist  and  the  Prohibitionist,  which  poll  each 
year  a  few  thousands  or  scores  of  thousands  of  votes,  but  these  parties  are 
not  sufficiently  strong  to  obtain  even  a  single  electoral  vote.  The  third 
parties  which  have  arisen  from  time  to  time  have  either  disappeared  or 
been  merged  into  other  parties  already  existing,  so  that  with  but  fe\v  excep- 
tions, elections  in  the  United  States  have  been  decided  by  the  compara- 
tive strength  of  two  contesting  political  parties.  I  do  not  wish  to  pass  judg- 
ment upon  this  system,  or  to  say  whether  or  not  the  two-party  system  is  ad- 
vantageous. It  appears,  however,  to  be  a  permanent  part  of  our  political 
institutions.  The  effect  of  this  two-party  plan  is  to  compel  groups 
of  men  with  special  interests  to  seek  concessions,  not  by  direct  action, 
but  from  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  dominant  parties.  A  strong, 
well-organized  group  of  men  determined  upon  a  given  line  of  policy  can 
usually  obtain  either  all  or  a  portion  of  their  demands  from  one  or  the  other 
of  the  parties  by  maintaining  neutrality  between  them.  Each  party  is  nec- 
essarily thrown  upon  the  adherence  of  any  large,  compact,  well-organized 
group  of  voters,  and,  as  a  rule,  the  group,  if  well-directed,  can  secure 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  2OJ 

pledges  and  obtain  their  fulfillment.  I  therefore  do  not  believe  that  for 
the  present  at  least  a  third  or  labor  party  would  be  of  benefit  to  the  working- 
men.  Such  a  party,  even  if  it  secured  the  adherence  of  every  organized 
worker  in  the  United  States,  would  not  obtain  a  majority  and  could  not, 
therefore,  enforce  its  will  upon  the  community  at  large.  It  is  true  that  the 
presence  in  Congress  of  even  a  few  men  absolutely  and  completely  com- 
mitted to  a  distinct  labor  policy  would  be  advantageous,  since  they  would 
leaven  the  mass  of  legislators  and  would  compel  a  vote  and  a  show  of  hands 
upon  any  question  involving  the  welfare  of  the  laboring  people.  In  my 
judgment,  therefore,  the  wage  earners  should,  in  proportion  to  their 
strength,  secure  the  nomination  and  election  of  a  numljer  of  representatives 
to  the  governing  bodies  of  city,  state,  and  nation.  And  workingmen  who 
are  members  of  trade  unions — whether  they  be  laymen  or  officers — should 
be  appointed  to  fill  such  positions  as  Commissioner  of  Labor,  Commissioner 
General  of  Immigration,  Chiefs  of  Bureaus  of  Labor  Statistics,  Factory 
and  Mine  Inspectors,  and  many  other  positions  in  which,  by  the  enforce- 
ment of  laws  enacted  especially  for  the  protection  of  wage  earners,  the  in- 
terests and  the  welfare  of  the  working  classes  could  be  safe-guarded. 

At  the  present  time,  trade  unions  can  in  all  probability  secure  greater 
advantages  and  more  important  concessions  from  the  existing  political  par- 
ties than  by  forming  a  third  party.  To  a  certain  extent,  both  parties  arc 
desirous  of  securing  the  lalx)r  vote,  and  much  legislation  is  proposed  and 
carried  out  along  these  lines.  There  does  not  apjx^ar  to  be  any  clear  di- 
vision as  Ix-twcen  two  dominant  parties  in  this  country,  the  Republican 
party  1>eing  more  favorable  in  some  states  and  the  Democratic  party  more 
favorable  In  others.  Trade  unionists  should  adopt  a  ]x>licy  of  building  up 
a  strong  outside  sentiment,  and  in  this  way  influence  the  nominations  of 
the  two  parties.  The  Anti-Saloon  League  and  several  other  organizations 
adopt  these  methods,  and  thc-ir  success  justifies  them  in  so  doing.  In  de- 
claring against  a  third  lalx>r  party,  howe\er,  I  wish  it  to  l>e  understood  that 
this  refers  only  to  the  immediate  |x»1icy  of  the  unions.  One  cannot  foresee 
what  the  future  of  the  dominant  parties  in  the  I'nited  States  will  be,  and 


208  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

if  it  should  come  to  pass  that  the  two  great  American  political  parties  op- 
posed labor  legislation,  as  they  now  favor  it,  it  would  be  the  imperative  duty 
of  unionists  to  form  a  third  party  in  order  to  secure  some  measure  of  re- 
form. I  regard  the  formation  of  a  third  party  at  the  present  time  as  inad- 
visable, owing  to  the  clearly  marked  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  two 
dominant  parties  to  grant  a  large  number  of  the  requests  of  the  working- 
men;  but  if  these  conditions  should  cease  to  exist,  then  it  would  be  advis- 
able for  the  unions  to  organize  a  third  party. 

One  of  the  great  disadvantages  of  the  organization  of  a  third  party 
is  that  it  means,  at  the  same  time,  the  organization  of  all  men  opposed  to 
or  apathetic  to  labor  unions.  The  creation  of  a  party  means  the  establish- 
ment of  a  shining  mark  for  the  attacks  of  all  persons  antagonistic  to  union- 
ism and  the  alienation  of  the  sympathies  and  the  loss  of  the  support  of  the 
present  parties.  A  third  party  should,  therefore,  be  formed  only  in  case 
of  absolute  necessity. 

While,  however,  the  workingmen  could  not  as  a  separate  party  secure 
a  majority  or  even  a  respectable  minority  of  the  legislators,  they  could  do 
far  more  efficient  work  and  could  influence  legislation  far  more  effectively, 
by  organizing  with  the  purpose  of  influencing  one  or  the  other  or  both  of 
the  dominant  parties.  If  the  workingmen  of  the  country  were  properly 
organized  at  the  present  time  and  were  imbued  with  the  absolute  necessity 
of  insisting  upon  wise  labor  legislation,  neither  of  the  dominant  political 
parties  could  resist  them,  and  wise  legislation  benefiting  the  toilers  would 
undoubtedly  be  enacted.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the  purposes 
of  the  workingman  can  better  Ije  attained  by  the  formation  of  a  solid  group 
of  men  united  in  their  political  aspirations  and  their  political  demands,  but 
not  committed  to  the  policy  of  forming  a  third  party,  than  in  any  other  way. 
It  takes  a  majority  of  workingmen  in  any  district  to  elect  their  own  rep- 
resentative, but  it  takes  only  a  small  minority  to  insist  upon  the  election  of 
a  proper  man  by  one  or  the  other  of  the  parties  already  constituted. 

Another  form  of  political  activity  which  the  trade  unions  should  avoid 
is  that  of  committing  the  movement  to  any  one  political  party.  No  union 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  209 

or  federation,  whether  local  or  national,  should  commit  itself  to  the  Repub- 
lican or  Democratic  party,  because  the  majority  of  its  members  are  Repub- 
licans or  Democrats,  or  to  the  Socialist  or  Prohibition  party,  because  the  ma- 
jority of  its  members  are  Socialists  or  Prohibitionists.  You  cannot  thrust 
political  convictions  down  a  man's  throat  by  a  resolution,  however  unani- 
mous, or  by  a  vote,  however  binding.  The  attempts  to  commit  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  to  the  Socialist  platform  should  be  vigorously 
repelled,  even  by  Socialist  unionists  themselves.  Such  a  resolution  has 
usually  failed  by  a  decisive  vote,  but  even  if  it  were  passed,  it  would  not 
mean  that  the  majority  of  unionists  would  vote  for  socialism,  and  it  cer- 
tainly would  not  mean  that  the  minority  opposed  to  it  would  so  vote.  The 
proper  method  of  creating  and  solidifying  a  political  sentiment  is  not  tocom- 
mit  a  man  to  a  single  political  party,  but  rather  to  create  in  them  of  their 
own  conviction  a  sense  of  the  necessity  of  working  to  carry  out  a  particular 
and  definite  program. 

As  time  goes  on,  it  is  not  improbable  that  lalx>r  organizations  will  have 
increased  influence  upon  the  government  of  our  states  and  especially  of  our 
cities.  The  day  is  past  when  government  in  the  United  States  is  consid- 
ered the  prerogative  of  a  specially  favored  class.  The  history  of  alienations 
shows  that  one  class  after  another  has  been  admitted  to  the  suffrage  and 
has  been  invested  with  a  larger  and  larger  share  of  the  responsibility  of  gov- 
ernment. Up  to  the  present  time,  the  workingmcn  of  this  country,  through 
lack  of  organization  and.  therefore,  of  a  central,  intelligent  direction,  have 
been  unable  to  secure  as  much  real  control  over,  or  advantage  from,  the  gov- 
eminent  of  our  cities  as  they  should.  Workingmcn  have  voted  for  one 
party  or  another  according  to  habit,  tradition,  or  personal  friendship,  or  for 
some  other  reason  not  connected  with  the  welfare  of  their  class.  In  the 
past  it  was  always  possible  to  play  off  one  body  of  workmen  against  another. 
just  as  in  a  strike  the  non-unionists  are  pitted  against  the  unionists.  With 
the  growth  of  organized  labor,  however,  it  should  bo  possible  for  strong 
trade  unions  and  central  federated  labor  organizations  to  secure  Irmn  the 
legislators  of  our  cities  the  enactment  of  fair  and  reasonable  laws  beneficial 


210  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

to  workingmen.  Such  a  participation  of  trade  unions  should  be  strictly 
and  rigidly  limited  to  obtaining  measures  for  the  advantage  of  their  class 
and  of  the  community  in  general,  and  should  not  degenerate  into  a  scramble 
for  office  on  the  part  of  individual  leaders.  The  path  of  politics  is  strewn  with 
the  ruins  of  high  enterprises  and  the  dry  bones  of  noble  characters,  and  a 
union  once  launched  upon  the  perilous  seas  of  office-grabbing  is  sooner  or 
later  bound  to  lose  its  hold  upon  the  esteem  and  allegiance  of  its  members 
and  to  be  finally  shattered  by  the  force  of  internal  dissension. 

There  is  nothing  wrong  if  a  labor  leader  for  the  good  of  the  cause  ac- 
cepts a  political  position  for  which  he  is  fitted,  and  in  which  he  can  benefit 
his  fellow-workmen.  There  should,  however,  be  no  contest  for  the  placing 
of  workingmen  or  men  of  any  other  class  in  "fat  jobs."  When  a  labor  or- 
ganization has  grown  strong,  especially  in  a  city,  there  comes  even  to  the 
conscientious  leader  a  feeling  of  power  and  a  recognition  of  his  ability 
to  secure  a  position  or  political  favors  in  return  for  his  influence.  It  occas- 
ionally happens  that  political  activity,  begun  with  the  highest  ideals,  degen- 
erates into  a  policy  of  mere  position-grabbing.  The  inevitable  result  of 
such  action  is  demoralization  and  disintegration.  The  men  who  have  not 
secured  positions  are  jealous  of  the  men  who  have,  and  the  adherents  of 
the  political  party  not  favored  begin  to  feel  that  their  union  has  been  used 
as  a  tool  for  evil  purposes  and  has  been  diverted  from  its  original  aims. 
When  a  union  is  launched  upon  this  course,  the  result  in  too  many  cases  is 
that  the  important  and  even  vital  demands  of  the  workingmen  are  surren- 
dered to  the  political  ambitions  of  the  labor  leader  himself. 

By  this  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  a  union  official  may  not  enter  the 
service  of  the  national,  state,  or  municipal  government,  but  the  contest  for 
such  a  position,  especially  where  it  involves  the  use  of  the  prestige  and 
power  of  the  organization,  is  utterly  demoralizing.  Once  embarked  upon 
such  a  course  a  union  can  find  no  stopping  place,  no  means  of  resistance  to 
the  temptations  and  dangers  which  beset  it.  At  first  it  seems  to  be  plain 
sailing,  and  no  conflict  appears  between  the  interests  of  the  candidate  and 
those  of  his  union ;  but  little  by  little  concession  must  be  made,  until  in  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  211 

eiul  the  contest  is  seen  to  be  fought  purely  in  the  self-interest  of  the  man 
and  not  to  any  extent  for  the  welfare  of  those  whose  interests  are  entrusted 
to  his  care. 

By  holding  aloof  from  the  struggle  for  spoil,  by  maintaining  a 
dignified  neutrality  upon  matters  of  no  import  to  trade  unionism,  by 
evading  the  wars  of  personalities,  and  keeping  above  the  grime  and 
mire  of  local  politics,  unions  through  their  city  federations  may  place 
themselves  in  a  position  to  exact  from  the  municipal  government 
measures  for  the  advancement  of  the  working  classes.  The  election 
of  councilmen  from  workingmen's  wards  should  be  conditioned  upon 
actual  past  services  to  the  cause  of  labor.  A  constant  effort  should 
be  made  to  commit  the  municipalities  to  the  doctrine  of  a  living 
wage,  and  no  city  work  should  be  done  and  no  city  contracts  awarded 
without  provision  that  union  wages  and  union  conditions  prevail.  The 
cities,  like  the  state  and  national  governments,  should  take  their  place 
among  the  fair  employers  of  labor. 

In  many  other  departments  of  city  life  the  union  could  exert  a  benefi- 
cent and  far-reaching  influence.  In  the  great  field  of  education,  for  in- 
stance, this  inlluence  should  make  itself  felt;  for  the  schools  of  the  city 
should  not  in  any  case  l>e  antagonistic  to  the  principles  of  organized  labor. 
By  this  I  do  not  mean  that  organized  lalx>r  should  swagger  into  city  gov- 
ernment and  attempt  to  do  what  is  not  within  its  fair  province.  But  in  this 
field,  as  in  business,  the  rights  of  lalx>r  should  be  crystallized  and  formu- 
lated, to  the  end  that  the  true  interests  of  all  members  and  all  classes  of 
society  may  be  harmonized. 

The  political  influence  of  organized  workmen  can  be  increased  only  by 
more  wide-spread  interest  in  political  matters  and  more  efficient  organiza- 
tion. The  machinery  for  influencing  legislation  already  exists,  but  it  needs 
to  be  perfected  and  to  be  used  by  men  who  arc  united  in  their  efforts  to  se- 
cure political  action.  The  workingmen  of  the  country  should  l>c  constantly 
appealed  to,  should  be  instructed  UJHUI  questions  <>f  import  to  them,  and 


212  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

should  be  kept  continually  informed  of  the  records  of  the  men  for  whom 
they  vote. 

The  political  influence  of  trade  unions  should  be  exerted,  primarily, 
not  through  the  several  national  organizations,  but  through  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  the  state  federations,  and  the  city  central  bodies.  Trade 
unions  are  organized  on  the  lines  of  trades  or  industries,  but  political  ac- 
tion is  carried  out  on  territorial  lines.  The  carpenters  or  Locomotive  En- 
gineers might  each  have  enough  votes  to  secure  the  election  of  representa- 
tives, if  these  votes  could  be  concentrated  in  a  few  districts.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  however,  the  members  of  these  unions — and  this  is  true  of  the  ma- 
jority— are  scattered  all  over  the  country  an*!  in  no  one  place  are  sufficiently 
strong  to  carry  an  election.  The  world  of  organized  labor  must  therefore 
exert  its  political  influence  through  federations,  which  group  the  votes  by 
districts,  rather  than  through  unions,  which  group  the  votes  by  industries. 

To  accomplish  political  reforms,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
must  be  greatly  strengthened  and  must  receive  the  unqualified  support  of 
the  national  unions.  The  various  unions  should  submit  proposed  legisla- 
tion to  the  Federation  in  order  to  secure  the  support  of  all  unionists  upon 
any  wise  and  just  proposal  of  any  single  group;  and  no  legislation  should 
be  advanced  or  fought  for  by  national  unions  unless  it  secure  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  Federation. 

The  political  activity  of  the  union  should  always  be  carried  on  by  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  where  it  involves  national  legislation;  by 
the  state  federations,  where  it  involves  state  legislation ;  and  by  the  city 
central  bodies,  where  it  involves  municipal  laws  or  ordinances.  The  pro- 
gram which  has  been  carefully  and  thoughtfully  prepared  by  the  national 
unions,  or  their  delegates,  in  the  conventions  of  the  Federation,  after  being 
drawn  up  by  the  best  constitutional  attorneys  and  subjected  to  the  criticism 
of  experts,  should  be  sent  to  the  various  state  federations  and  local  bodies. 
The  Federation  should  report  to  the  national  unions  the  progress  of  legisla- 
tion and  of  the  votes  of  various  representatives  upon  the  measure  proposed, 
and  the  state  federations  and  city  central  bodies  should  be  kept  constantly 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  21$ 

informed  of  the  vote  of  the  members  from  their  districts  upon  each  indi- 
vidual question.  Before  election  every  representative  in  the  United  States 
Congress  should  be  presented  with  a  list  of  questions  concerning  his  atti- 
tude toward  the  specific  demands  formulated  by  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  and  through  the  city  central  bodies  and  the  constituent  locals, 
this  statement  should  be  submitted  to  the  working-men  of  his  particular  dis- 
trict. Thus,  in  a  Congressional  election  in  any  district,  the  replies  of  all 
candidates  for  the  office  should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  every  workingman 
in  the  particular  district,  so  that  he  could  judge  of  the  attitude  of  both  can- 
didates towards  each  of  the  demands  formulated  by  the  organized  work- 
men. Pamphlets  should  be  issued  upon  the  various  demands  of  the  Ameri- 
can Federation, and  thesepamphlets  should  be  circulated  by  the  state  federa- 
tions and  the  city  central  bodies,  so  that  each  of  the  two  million  trade  union- 
ists of  the  country  would  have  in  his  possession  a  statement  of  the  demands 
of  the  Federation,  the  reasons  therefor,  the  progress  already  made  toward 
their  attainment,  and  the  votes  of  various  congressmen,  senators,  or  mem- 
bers of  legislatures  upon  the  questions  brought  up.  The  Federation  should 
devote  a  considerable  sum  of  money  to  the  sole  purpose  of  political  prop- 
aganda, and  the  national  unions  should  strengthen  it  and  hold  up  its  hands 
in  this  work. 

To  accomplish  political  reforms,  however,  more  is  necessary  than  mere 
machinery.  The  trade  unionists  of  the  country  must  realize  that  little  can 
be  accomplished  by  political  activities  unless  every  man  takes  an  interest. 
The  men  must  go  to  the  polls  and  vote.  I  would  not  desire  to  see  and 
would  strongly  deprecate  the  slightest  compulsion  or  the  least  exercise  of 
undue  influence  upon  the  individual  voter.  Every  unionist  must  retain  the 
right  to  vote  absolutely  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  conscience  and  in- 
telligence, even  though  his  vote  l>c  directly  in  opjx>sition  to  the  political 
inclinations  and  political  aspirations  of  the  trade  union  world.  \\  hilc. 
however,  every  unionist  should  l>c  at  perfect  liberty  to  vote  as  he  will,  the 
trade  union  ideas  and  the  trade  union  program,  simple,  precise,  and  unified. 
should  be  perfectly  known  to  every  unionist.  The  men  should  not  only  go 


214  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

t^>  the  polls,  but  should  also  go  to  the  primaries.  Politics  can  only  be  re- 
formed by  real  interest  on  the  part  of  all  well-intentioned  members  of  the 
community.  A  man  who  is  now  willing  to  go  en  a  six  months'  strike  and 
make  heroic  sacrifices  for  the  good  of  his  class  will  frequently  not  take  the 
trouble  to  attend  the  primaries  of  the  political  party,  to  which  he  belongs, 
in  order  to  help  shape  the  policy  of  that  party  in  a  manner  calculated  to  ad- 
vance the  best  interests  of  his  class  and  of  society. 

At  the  present  time  trade  unions,  and  the  Ia1x>r  movement  in  general, 
are  stronger  and  have  a  greater  influence  in  the  legislative  than  in  the 
judicial  sphere  of  governmental  activity.  The  present  tendency  of  the 
political  parties  seems  to  a  certain  extent  to  be  to  allow  the  corporate  inter- 
ests to  nominate  the  elective  judges.  Trade  unions  should  attempt,  as  far 
as  possible,  to  exert  such  influence  and  control  upon  political  parties  as  will 
preclude  the  nomination  for  the  judgeship  of  men  who  are  notoriously 
opposed  to  the  interests  of  organized  labor. 

In  conclusion,  trade  unionists  can  effect  much  by  political  action. 
Such  political  power,  however,  cannot  at  the  present  time  be  best  secured 
by  the  formation  of  a  separate  labor  party,  and  no  good,  but  much  harm 
may  result  from  committing  the  lalxxr  movement  to  any  particular  political 
party.  The  unions  must  avoid  the  danger  of  allowing  their  political  ac- 
tivity to  degenerate  into  mere  position -grabbing,  although  the  policy  of 
choosing  qualified  men  for  elective  or  appointive  positions  in  which  they  can 
be  of  real  and  obvious  assistance  to  the  movement  should  be  encouraged. 
To  accomplish  political  reforms  the  working-men  must  be.  organized  in  an 
efficient  and  thorough  manner,  in  a  system  which  will  concentrate  the  entire 
voting  power  of  all  unionists ;  and  the  individual  men,  while  retaining  fully 
their  own  initiative,  must  be  encouraged  to  vote  at  all  elections  and  to  at- 
tend the  primaries  of  their  respective  parties. 


CHAPTER  XXV 
TRADE  UNIONS,  THE  STATE  AND  THE  LAW 

Protection  Under  the  Law  and  Protection  From  the  Law.  Prosecution  and  Per- 
secution. The  Right  to  Form  Unions.  The  Riyht  Not  to  Work.  Trade  Unionists 
and  the  Courts.  The  Question  of  the  Militia.  Attitude  of  Unionists  toward  Mili- 
tarism. Labor  Reform  through  Legislation.  The  Difficulties  of  American  Legisla- 
tion. 

THE  efforts  of  workinginen  to  assert  their  rights  and  better  their  con- 
ditions have  been  met  from  the  beginning'  by  the  invocation  of  the 
law  and  the  adoption  of  repressive  measures.  In  England,  as  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe,  the  slightest  indications  of  unrest  called  forth  harsh  laws, 
cruelly  enforced;  and  only  gradually,  as  the  result  of  continued  strife  and 
effort,  were  the  workingmen  enabled  to  secure  even  a  portion  of  their  just 
dues.  In  this  repression  of  labor,  the  law  was  not  infrequently  diverted 
from  its  original  intent,  so  that  often  the  need  of  lalx>r  became  less  pro- 
tection under  the  law  than  protection  from  the  law. 

Long  before  the  rise  of  trade  unions,  the  law  was  used  to  depress  the 
conditions  of  workingmen.  \Vhen.  in  the  fourteenth  century,  the  l>lack 
Plague  cut  off  hundreds  of  thousands  of  toilers  and  the  survivors  demanded 
higher  wages,  the  English  government  answered  tin;  demand  \\ith  the  so- 
called  Statutes  of  Lalx>rcrs.  These  laus  fixed  the  maximum  rale  of  wa;;r 
and  made  it  a  j>enal  offense  to  offer  or  accept  more. 

During  several  centuries  there  appeared  to  be  a  conspiracy  «>n  the  p.'iv1 
</;"  the  governing  classes  in  England  to  reduce  wages  and  to  retard  the  ad 
\anccment  of  the  workingmen.  During  the  eighteenth  century,  especially 
at  its  close,  oppressive  measures  were  enacted  against  trade  unionists,  and 
even  after  the  unions  were  legali/cd,  their  members  were  prosecuted  for 
conspiracy,  for  picketing,  for  administering  oaths,  for  not  finishing  work, 
and  on  many  other  pretexts. 

(215) 


2i6  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

Since  the  Revolution,  there  has  never  been  in  the  United  States  a  law 
fixing  wages,  but  the  inferior  courts  have  held  that  combinations  of  work- 
ingruen  were  illegal,  have  punished  laborers  for  striking,  and  for  other  jus- 
tifiable actions.  At  a  later  period,  however,  certain  legal  decisions  affirmed 
the  right  of  workingmen  to  combine  into  unions  and  to  strike  for  higher 
wages  or  better  conditions,  but  it  was  not  until  after  the  Civil  War  that  this 
right  was  finally  and  definitely  guaranteed. 

At  the  present  time  the  right  of  workingmen  to  strike  is  perfectly  clear. 
The  common  law,  as  it  now  exists,  is  summarized  as  follows  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor  in  its  Bulletin  dated  November,  1895. 

"Every  one  has  the  right  to  work  or  to  refuse  to  work  for  whom  and  on 
what  terms  he  pleases,  or  to  refuse  to  deal  with  whom  he  pleases :  and  a 
number  of  persons,  if  they  have  no  unlawful  object  in  view,  have  the  right 
to  agree  that  they  will  not  work  under  a  fixed  price  or  without  certain  con- 
ditions. The  right  of  employees  to  refuse  to  work  either  singly  or  in  com- 
bination is  balanced  by  the  right  of  employers  to  refuse  to  engage  the  serv- 
ices of  any  one  for  any  reason  they  may  deem  proper." 

Even  the  most  uncompromising  opponents  of  unionism  now  recognize 
the  legal  right  to  strike.  In  its  issue  of  May  I4th,  1903,  the  New  York 
Sun,  in  reply  to  this  question  from  a  well-known  multi-millionaire,  "Shall 
employers  be  permitted  to  conduct  a  lawful  business  in  a  lawful  way  with- 
out the  dictation  of  walking  delegates  from  irresponsible  and  lawless 
unions?"  replied  in  an  unqualified  negative:  "If  unions  prefer  to  conduct 
their  business  through  walking  delegates  and  become  strong  enough  to  dic- 
tate the  conditions  on  which  they  will  trade  their  labor  for  the  employers' 
cash,  their  legal  right  so  to  dictate  is  no  more  questionable  than  is  the  right 
of  each  individual  member  to  decide  how  much  he  is  willing  to  pay  for  his 
hat.  If  they  will  work  but  an  hour  a  day,  at  $10  an  hour,  prescribing  at 
tiie  same  time  that  their  employers  shall  wear  green  caps  and  drink  no  beer, 
no  one  can  say  them  nay." 

While  the  right  to  strike  has  now  been  conceded,  the  courts  have,  in 
many  cases,  declared  illegal  various  actions  necessary  to  the  successful  con- 


- 


X 

n 


a.     X 
o      - 


a.     rr 

t 

7: 


ffi 

u 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  217 

duct  of  a  strike.  It  is  perfectly  just  that  all  forms  of  violence  be  visited 
with  condign  and  summary  punishment,  but  it  is  unjust  that,  as  frequently 
happens,  peaceful  picketing  should  be  castigated.  By  picketing  is  meant 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  stationing  of  a  few  men  before,  or  in  the 
vicinity  of,  the  establishment  struck  against,  in  order  to  inform  prospective 
employees  or  patrons  that  a  strike  is  in  progress,  and  to  convince  or  per- 
suade them  not  to  accept  employment,  or  not  to  purchase  articles,  in  the 
particular  establishment.  The  right  of  picketing,  which  is  merely  the  right 
of  free  speech,  has  been  wilfully  confounded  with  the  use  of  violence,  and 
has  been  over  and  over  again  interpreted  as  a  malicious  attempt  to  injure 
the  employer  struck  against.  Both  by  injunction  and  otherwise,  trade 
unionists  have  been  punished  simply  for  doing  what  they  had  a  perfect 
right  to  do,  namely  to  picket,  and  many  strikes  have  been  lost  and  many 
lockouts  won  through  the  attitude  of  the  courts  on  this  matter. 

In  many  other  ways,  the  trade  unionists  and  the  working  classes  in 
general  have  1)een  injuriously  affected  by  the  interpretation  of  the  laws. 
Many  legal  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  workingman  and  the  better- 
ment of  his  condition  have  been  declared  unconstitutional,  and  in  their  de- 
cisions higher  tribunals  have  appeared  to  interpret  every  attempt  to  im- 
prove the  conditions  of  workmen  as  a  violation  of  the  right  of  contract  or 
as  special  or  class  legislation.  By  the  invention  of  the  doctrine  of  common 
employment  the  courts  have  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  taken  away  from 
working-men  all  legal  redress  for  accidents,  no  matter  how  serious  the  in- 
jury, or  how  innocent  the  victim  of  contributory  negligence.  The  majority 
of  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  especially  of  the  superior  tribunals,  have  IXXMI 
clearly  against  workingmen,  and  especially  against  trade  unionists. 

The  attitude  of  trade  unionists  toward  the  state  and  the  nation  should 
be  and  is  that  of  all  good  citizens.  The  workmen  should,  and  I  In-lieve  do, 
realize  that  they  form  an  integral  part  of  the  slate  and  nation,  and  they 
should  cast  their  votes  and  should  agitate  constantly  for  the  attainment  of 
the  aims  and  ideals  of  their  class. 

The  general  attitude  of  the  trade  unions  towards  the   state   has 


2I3  ORGANIZED  LABOR 

misunderstood  in  consequence  of  the  attitude  of  a  few  unions  towards  the 
militia.  A  considerable  amount  of  criticism  has  been  aroused  within  recent 
years  by  the  action  of  the  Schenectady  Trades'  Council  in  expelling  a  mem- 
ber for  joining  the  state  militia,  and  it  has  been  popularly  claimed  that  the 
trade  unionists  as  such  are  opposed  to  the  military  system  of  the  various 
states. 

This,  however,  is  a  very  grave  exaggeration.  A  few  labor  organiza- 
tions have  rules  refusing  membership  to  persons  who  join  the  state  militia, 
but  the  vast  majority  of  trade  unions  take  no  action  whatsoever  in  regard 
to  this  matter.  The  feelings  of  those  unionists  who  are  opposed  to  the 
militia  are  summarized  in  a  provision  of  the  constitution  of  the  Journeymen 
Stone  Cutters  of  North  America.  ''This  association  does  not  approve  of, 
or  sanction,  any  of  its  members  belonging  to  any  volunteer  military  organ- 
ization, except  on  a  call  from  the  Government  for  the  defense  of  their  coun- 
try." The  cause  usually  assigned  for  this  antagonism  is  that  the  volunteer 
military  organizations  have  in  the  past  been  called  out  not  only  to  suppress 
disorder  but  actually  to  put  down  strikes.  There  are  instances  in  which  cer- 
"  tain  officers  have  proceeded  to  the  scene  of  a  labor  dispute  and  have  con- 
gratulated themselves  and  their  loyal  and  admiring  fellow-countrymen  upon 
''breaking  the  back-bone  of  the  strike."  The  Stone  Cutters,  one  of  the  few 
organizations  refusing  to  admit  militiamen,  are  proud  of  the  fact  that  upon 
the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  their  union  at  Washington  enlisted  in  a  body 
and  fought  throughout  the  conflict. 

Whatever  may  be  the  sins  of  the  militia  against  strikers,  the  attitude  of 
unions  towards  them  should  be,  and  almost  invariably  is,  one  of  tolerance  if 
not  of  friendliness.  There  is,  it  is  true,  throughout  the  whole  trade  union 
world,  a  certain  opposition  to  militarism,  an  opposition  founded  upon  pat- 
riotism and  good  judgment.  Labor  organizations,  howrever,  should  not 
oppose  the  establishment  or  creation  of  state  militia,  but  should  leave  their 
members  free  to  exercise  their  own  judgment  in  the  matter  of  enlisting. 
Unions  could  not,  if  they  would,  destroy  the  military  organizations  of  the 
several  states,  and  they  should  not  if  they  could.  A  large  number  of  the 


ORGANIZED     LABOR  2ig 

militiamen  ordered  to  the  anthracite  region  during  the  late  strike,  were 
members  of  the  miners'  organization,  or  in  sympathy  with  its  aims 
and  purposes,  and  while  they  maintained  peace  (in  which  they  were 
given  the  assistance  of  the  United  Mine  Workers'  organization),  they 
did  not  try  to  break  "the  backbone  of  the  strike,"  The  strength  of  the 
labor  unions  will  be  largely  increased  by  a  friendly  spirit  between  them  and 
the  militia.  Fortunately,  the  number  of  unions  discriminating  against 
militiamen  is  extremely  small,  but  it  would  be  far  better  if  there  were  none 
at  all.  The  unions  who  do  oppose  the  militia  fail  to  recognize  that  they, 
as  unionists,  are  a  part  of  the  State,  interested  in  the  maintenance  of  the 
institutions  of  the  State,  and  vested  with  the  right  of  determining  in  part 
the  policy  of  the  State.  I  he  trade  union  movement  in  this  country  car, 
make  progress  only  by  identifying  itself  with  the  State — by  obeying  its  just 
laws  and  by  upholding  the  military  as  well  as  the  civil  arm  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

From  the  beginning  trade  unions  have  been  law-abiding  institutions 
and  have  endeavored  by  political  action  to  secure  the  reforms  which  they 
desired.  In  the  Tinted  States  some  of  the  progress  already  made  by  trade 
unions  in  lettering  the  condition  of  workingmen  has  been  due  to  di- 
rect political  action  by  trade  unionists.  hut  this  is  true  to  a  far  greater  ex- 
tent in  Fngland.  The  greater  success  of  British  unions  in  this  regard  is 
owing  partly  to  the  comparative  youth  of  American  organizations  and  to 
the  fact  that  conditions  in  the  United  States  tor  securing  effective  and  far 
reaching  laws  beneficial  to  workingmen  are  far  less  favorable  than  in  Fng- 
land. There  are  many  difficulties  in  this  country  in  the  way  of  securing 
and  enforcing  such  laws.  I  nlikc  Fngland.  France.  Belgium,  and  other 
countries,  the  United  States  is  not  a  single,  unified  nation,  but  its  powers 
of  government  are  divided  l>elwcen  the  nation  and  the  several  states.  For 
certain  reforms  it  is  necessary  to  go  to  the  national  government,  for  others, 
to  the  state  governments,  and  for  still  others,  to  both.  A  victory  gained  in 
one  state  may  sometimes  be  nullified  by  the  failure  to  ^ain  a  like  victory 
in  neighboring  states.  A  British  law  regulating  hours  of  labor  in  the  cot- 


22O  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ton  factories  applies  to  all  the  cotton  factories  in  the  United  Kingdom ;  but 
a  Massachusetts  law  has  no  validity  in  Pennsylvania  or  in  Illinois.  When- 
ever legislation  for  benefiting  the  workman  is  sought  in  one  state,  it  is  con- 
tested on  the  ground  that  its  passage  and  enforcement  will  drive  the  indus- 
try in  question  from  that  state.  If  similar  legislation  could  be  obtained 
simultaneously  in  all  states  this  objection  would  be  groundless,  but  this  has 
never  been  possible  and  legislation  in  one  state  has  been  hampered  by  the 
failure  to  secure  similar  legislation  in  another. 

The  powers  of  government  in  the  United  States,  moreover,  are  not 
only  divided  but  limited.  In  England  a  law  passed  by  Parliament  is  by 
that  very  fact  constitutional;  but  in  the  United  States  the  courts  can  over- 
throw any  law  which  in  their  opinion  is  not  constitutional.  In  this  coun- 
try legislation  secured  by  the  unions  has  been  repeatedly  declared  in  viola- 
tion of  the  constitution  of  a  state  or  of  the  United  States  and,  therefore. 
void.  Legislation  protecting  the  workingmen  has  been  enacted  in  Eng- 
land, while  similar  legislation  has  been  declared  unconstitutional  in  the 
United  States,  because  it  was  held  to  abridge  the  freedom  of  contract.  The 
decisions  of  the  courts  has  been  so  divergent  that  the  workingmen  have 
never  been  sure  that  they  have  secured  an  enforceable  law  until  it  has  been 
tested  in  the  courts. 

The  ordinary  advantage  of  labor  laws  as  compared  with  reforms  ob- 
tained by  strikes  or  negotiation  is  their  more  general  application  and  valid- 
ity. This,  however,  is  very  much  less  the  case  in  the  United  States  than 
in  other  countries,  owing  to  the  subdivision  of  the  powers  of  government 
and,  sometimes,  to  inefficient  and  even  dishonest  administration.  Many 
laws  tending  to  improve  the  conditions  of  workingmen  remain  a  dead  letter, 
or  are  enforced  so  unequally  and  unfairly  that  benefits  which  might  other- 
wise arise  from  them  are  lost. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  of  the  advisability  of  securing  wise 
and  reasonable  legislation  for  the  protection  of  wage  earners,  especially  of 
working  women  and  children.  The  laws  should  be  so  amended  as  to  pre- 
vent excessive  work  by  either  adults  or  minors,  and  in  all  cases  the  health, 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  221 

safety,  and  reasonable  comfort  of  the  workman  should  l>e  sought  and  ob- 
tained. The  state  should  exercise  supervision  over  the  character  and  con- 
dition of  the  mills,  mines,  workshops,  and  factories,  in  which  a  hrge  portion 
of  the  population  spend  the  greater  part  of  their  waking  days.  The  state 
should  prevent  overcrowding  of  factories,  useless  sacrifice  of  life,  working 
v\ith  noxious  and  harmful  materials,  and  the  maintenance  of  evil  conditions 
of  work  which  undermine  the  health  and  destroy  the  happiness  of  the  work- 
ing classes.  There  are  also  many  laws  not  directly  connected  with  factory 
legislation  which  would  be  of  great  benefit  to  the  wage  earners.  The  pro- 
vision of  proper  education  for  the  children  of  the  working  classes,  the  ad- 
herence of  national,  state,  and  local  governments  to  the  principle  of  the  liv- 
ing wage,  the  collection  of  useful  data  and  information  concerning  wages 
and  conditions  of  work,  the  efficient  administration  of  laws  regulriting  im- 
migration, and  many  other  matters  of  common  interest  should  be  directly 
influenced  by  the  wishes  and  votes  of  the  workingmen  of  this  country. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 
THE  INCORPORATION  OF  TRADE  UNIONS 

Associations  of  Employers  Unincorporated.  The  Claim  of  Employers.  Incorpora- 
tion Voluntary  or  not  at  All.  Trade  Unions  Maintain  Agreements.  Moral  Respon- 
sibility. Senator  Hanna  on  the  Indianapolis  Convention.  Responsibility  Increased 
by  Trade  Agreements.  Incorporation  does  not  Create  Responsibility.  A  Man's  Word 
and  his  Bond.  The  Limits  of  Union  Responsibility.  Contradictions.  The  Taff  Vale 
Case.  Vagueness  of  the  Law.  Hostility  of  Judges.  Fears  of  Workingmen.  How 
Incorporation  Laws  should  be  Framed.  Hostility  to  Incorporation  not  Hostility  to 
l he  Law.  Dangers  of  Incorporation.  Needless  Litigation.  Home  Rule  for  Unions. 
The  New  York  Stock  Exchange  Unincorporated. 

DURING  recent  years  there  has  been  a  growing  demand,  urged  persist- 
ently both  by  friends  and  enemies  of  organized  labor,  that  trade 
unions  should  incorporate.  It  is  argued  that  labor  unions,  at  present  for 
the  most  part  unincorporated  bodies  not  directly  recognized  by  law,  should 
become  incorporated  in  somewhat  the  same  manner  as  business  enterprises. 
The  law  recognizes  two  classes  of  corporations,  those  ''for  profit"  and  those 
"not  for  profit,"  and  it  is  held  that  unions  should  enroll  themselves  among 
the  latter,  and  thus  acquire  ability  to  sue  and  liability  to  be  sued.  The  re- 
sult, we  are  told,  would  be  to  make  labor  unions  more  conservative  and 
more  responsible. 

This  solicitude  on  the  part  of  many  opponents  of  organized  labor 
should,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  gratifying  to  unionists,  since  it  is  a  flattering- 
recognition  of  the  power  of  organized  labor.  As  long  as  the  unions  were 
small,  feeble,  and  incompletely  organized,  no  loud  cry  was  raised  for  incor- 
poration, since  any  employer  could  lock  out  his  men  or  refuse  to  deal  with 
the  union.  However,  the  extraordinary  growth  in  the  number  and  power 
of  unions  has  evoked  a  strong  sentiment  for  incorporation  and  for  increased 
responsibility. 

(222) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  223 

Viewed  superficially,  there  appears  at  first  glance  some  justice  in  the 
claim  of  employers  that  unions  should  incorporate.  The  employers  as- 
sert that  in  making  trade  arrangements  with  labor  unions  they  are  risking 
vast  sums  of  money  invested  in  valuable  properties.  They  aver  that  for  any 
breach  on  their  part  of  these  contracts,  they,  the  employers,  are  legally  re- 
sponsible, whereas  for  a  similar  breach  on  the  part  of  the  workmen,  no  one 
is  answerable.  Trade  unions,  it  is  maintained,  should  put  themselves  into 
a  position  where  they  may  sue  and  be  sued,  and  should  accept  all  the  bene- 
fits and  all  the  responsibilities  of  a  legal  body  incorporated  under  the  laws 
of  the  state.  If  the  union  will  not  willingly  incorporate,  say  some  em- 
ployers, then  it  should  be  forced  to  do  so. 

In  all  the  vague  talk  UJKMI  the  subject  of  incorporation  one  thing  at 
least  is  clear,  that  incorporation  must  be  either  voluntary  or  not  at  all.  The 
constitutions  of  the  L'nited  States  and  of  the  several  states  protect  the  indi- 
vidual workman  or  group  of  workmen,  as  well  as  all  other  persons,  from  be- 
ing forced  against  their  will  into  an  incorporated  organization.  Xo  law 
compelling  a  labor  union  or  any  person  or  body  of  persons  to  incorporate 
would  for  a  single  moment  IK?  upheld  by  the  courts.  Incorporation  is  always 
a  privilege,  never  an  obligation,  and  a  charter  must  l>e  accepted  before  it 
becomes  valid.  The  courts  of  the  several  states  have  repeatedly  declared 
that  "no  man  can  l>e  comj>elled  by  the  legislature  to  become  a  meml>cr  of  ;i 
corporation  without  his  consent."  To  refuse  to  allow  a  union  to  exist  uu 
less  incor|)oratcd  would  IK:  to  deprive  citizens  of  the  right  of  lawful  assembly 
as  well  as  of  the  right  to  enter  freely  into  contractual  relations.  Finally, 
apart  from  all  other  reasons,  to  legislate  labor  unions  into  the  acceptance  o! 
charters  would  be  unconstitutional,  since  it  would  bo  das-;  legislation  a  fleet- 
ing1 only  certain  groups  or  associations,  while  leaving  other  classes  unaf- 
fected. It  is,  of  course,  conceivable  that  stringent  laws  might  be  passed 
attacking  Ialx>r  unions  with  the  purjK»se  of  compelling  them  to  incorporate. 
rather  than  incur  the  animosity  of  the  legislature.  The  general  effect  of 
such  restrictive  legislation,  however,  is  simply  heightened  secrecy  and  in- 
creased irresponsibility,  and  not  an  approach  to  greater  openness.  It  there- 


224  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

fore  seems  clear  that  the  question  of  incorporation  or  non-incorporation  is 
one  for  the  unions  themselves  to  determine  and  is  not  a  question  to  be  de- 
cided for  the  unions  by  the  legislatures  of  the  states. 

Even  though  the  unions  cannot  be  directly  forced  by  the  legislatures 
into  incorporating,  they  should  not,  on  this  account,  refuse  to  give  due  con- 
sideration to  this  or  any  other  seemingly  reasonable  demand  that  may  be 
made  by  the  employing  classes.  The  proposal  to  incorporate  should  receive 
a  respectful  hearing  and  should  be  considered  upon  its  merits,  the  question 
of  the  advantages  or  disadvantages  of  incorporation  being  decided  upon  the 
probable  effect  which  it  will  have  upon  the  labor  unions  and  upon  the  coun- 
try at  large. 

If  we  look  somewhat  more  closely  into  the  arguments  of  those  who 
favor  incorporation  of  trade  unions,  we  will  find  good  ground  for  refusing 
to  take  a  step  in  this  direction  without  due  consideration.  The  usual  cry  is 
that  unions  should  become  incorporated  in  order  to  become  more  responsible 
and,  therefore,  more  conservative,  but  few  people  ask  themselves  what  they 
mean  by  responsibility,  or  whether  the  unions  are  not  already  as  responsible 
and  scrupulous  in  keeping  their  engagements  and  agreements  as  they  would 
be  if  incorporated.  The  chapter  on  trade  agreements  will  show  that  ar- 
rangements made  on  a  large  scale  between  employers  and  employed  have 
usually  been  conscientiously  maintained  and  lived  up  to  by  both  sides. 
There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  moral  as  well  as  a  legal  responsibility,  and  in 
man)*  cases  the  word  of  a  man  or  an  organization  \vill  bind  him,  when,  if 
it  were  a  legal  agreement,  he  might  hire  a  lawyer  to  drive  a  coach  and  four 
through  it.  As  a  rule  the  men  keep  their  contracts  with  admirable  fidelity. 
"I  do  not  believe,  under  the  present  condition  of  things,"  says  Marcus  A. 
Hanna,  United  States  Senator  from  the  State  of  Ohio,  "in  incorporation  of 
trade  unions The  test  has  come,  for,  when  in  their  dire  ex- 
tremity, the  anthracite  miners  of  Pennsylvania  appealed  to  their  fellows  in 
the  bituminous  fields  in  the  West  to  come  out  and  strike  in  sympathy,  in 
order  that  conditions  might  be  forced  upon  this  country  which  would  en- 
force a  settlement  of  the  trouble the  bituminous  coal  miners, 


o 

5 

C 


o 
U 


PQ 

o 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 


225 


with  calm,  cool  judgment  and  loyalty  to  their  agreement,  voted  unanimously 
against  a  sympathetic  strike." 

The  way  to  make  unions  responsible  is  to  give  them  something  to  be 
responsible  for,  in  other  words,  to  make  a  trade  agreement  with  them. 
Such  agreements  for  large  industries  should  not  be  merely  local,  made  ujx>n 
the  sole  authority  of  a  small  body  of  men  liable  to  be  swept  away  by  excite- 
ment, or  of  a  single  small  employer,  subject  to  the  incalculable  eonijx'tition 
of  the  local  market,  but  should  be  broad  and  general,  involving,  if  possible. 
the  whole  industry  and  binding  employers  and  men  for  a  year  or  a  period  of 
years.  The  breach  of  an  agreement  of  this  sort  involves  consequences  com- 
pared to  which  the  damages  that  could  be  claimed  by  an  employer  or  col- 
lected from  even  a  wealthy  union,  whether  incorporated  or  unincorporated, 
would  be  small  indeed.  Too  much  stress  is  laid  upon  the  argument  that 
the  employer  is  responsible  financially,  whereas  the  employees  arc  respon- 
sible merely  morally.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  the  fact.  The  great  organ- 
izations of  employers,  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  the  Ty- 
pothetae,  the  associations  of  coal  operators  and  of  other  employers  arc  not 
incorporated.  Apart  from  this  fact,  however,  neither  the  workmen  nor  the 
union  making  a  trade  agreement  for  a  particular  city  or  for  a  whole  region 
have,  as  a  rule,  a  remedy  at  law  for  its  violation.  The  union  cannot  recover 
damages,  because  its  interest  in  the  contract  and  the  damage  sustained  by 
it  are,  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  merely  hypothetical,  while  the  individual 
workmen  fail  to  secure  damages  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  are  not  partie- 
to  the  contract  and  for  various  other  reasons.  I;.\cn  where  the  damage  can 
be  proved,  the  amount  is  not  easily  ascertained.  In  the  case  <>f  the  ( iannent 
\Yorkers,  who  had  made  contracts  with  the  employers,  it  \vas  recogm/cd 
by  the  union  that  it  was  practically  impossible  to  estimate  losses  or  damage 
incurred,  even  if  they  were  recoverable.  In  this  particular  instance  bonds 
bad  been  given  by  employers  for  the  faithful  |>crformancc  of  contract  obli- 
gations, but  even  in  this  case,  the  union  failed  to  recover  by  means  uf  ,\  for- 
feiture of  the  lx>nd.  The  employers  did  not  deny  that  violations  had  been 
made,  but  merely  claimed — and  their  claim  was  sustained  by  the  court — ihat 


226  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

their  contract  was  not  free,  but  obtained  under  duress,  since,  but  for  the  con- 
tract with  the  union,  they  could  not  have  remained  in  the  business.  There 
are  many  cases  where  a  man's  word  is  better  than  his  bond  or  than  a 
guarantee  fund.  The  obligation  resting  upon  the  miners  and  operators  to 
accept  the  award  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission  is  purely  moral, 
and  in  no  sense  legal,  and  yet  both  parties  to  the  controversy  have  recog- 
nized and  will  continue  to  recognize  that  this  obligation  is  stronger  than  any 
mere  legal  obligation,  which  might  be  avoided  through  technicalities  of  the 
law  or  the  shrewdness  of  attorneys.  Finally,  it  may  be  stated,  as  showing 
that  both  employers  and  workmen  trust  to  the  moral  rather  than  the  legal 
sanction  of  agreements,  that  where  employers  actually  do  break  their  con- 
tracts, the  workmen  strike  and  do  not  sue. 

Even  if  the  liability  of  the  unions  for  the  fulfillment  of  their  contracts 
were  not  sufficient,  and  even  if  it  were  desirable  and  necessary  to  increase 
this  responsibility,  there  is  no  good  reason  for  believing  that  such  a  result 
would  come  from  the  mere  incorporation  of  trade  unions.  Incorporation 
does  not  create  funds,  nor  does  it  always  make  existing  funds  attachable. 
The  object  of  incorporation  in  the  capitalist  world  is  not  to  create  but  to 
limit  responsibility.  Mere  incorporation  would  not  accomplish  the  pur- 
poses of  those  who  advocate  it  and  nothing  short  of  a  guarantee  fund  de- 
posited by  a  union,  whether  incorporated  or  unincorporated,  could  have  this 
effect,  it  being  even  doubtful  whether  this  measure  itself  would  be  successful. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  chief  aims  of  some  of  the  adherents  of  incorpora- 
tion is  to  make  the  unions  responsible  for  things  for  which  tho  law  does  not 
at  present  hold  them  answerable.  Some  of  the  advocates  of  incorporation 
of  trade  unions  seem  to  desire  by  this  means  to  make  the  unions  responsible 
in  cases  in  which  individual  men  strike  or  leave  the  employ  of  a  company 
which  has  signed  a  contract  with  the  union.  Such  a  responsibility,  however, 
is  and  should  be  beyond  the  legitimate  province  of  the  union.  Except  in 
such  contracts  as  some  made  by  the  Longshoremen,  the  trade  union  is  not 
a  guarantor  of  a  labor  supply  and  does  not  agree  to  do  a  certain  amount  of 
work  or  to  furnish  a  certain  amount  of  labor.  A  contract  entered  into  by 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  227 

a  union  merely  determines  the  rate  of  pay  and  the  conditions  of  employment 
for  such  members  of  the  union  as  agree  to  work ;  and  the  union  is  no  more 
compelled  to  furnish  a  sufficient  and  definite  number  of  laborers  than  the 
employer  to  furnish  a  sufficient  and  definite  amount  of  work.  The  union 
no  more  guarantees  that  any  particular  man  will  work  than  the  employer 
guarantees  that  work  will  be  provided  for  any  particular  man:  and  even  it' 
this  guarantee  did  exist,  the  mere  fact  of  incorporation  would  not  render  it 
more  effective. 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  incoq>oration  seem  to  desire  to  make  the 
unions  responsible  not  only  for  the  authorized  acts  of  their  agents  and 
officers,  but  for  those  of  all  members  or  of  persons  sympathizing  with  the 
unions  but  having  no  connection  with  them.  The  arguments  of  those  who 
desire  incorporation  are  curiously  at  variance  in  this  matter.  Some  say  that 
the  unions  should  be  forced  to  incorporate  because  they  are  not  responsible 
for  these  actions ;  others  claim  that  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not 
incorporate,  because  they  are  even  now  liable  for  damages  for  such  action, 
and  that  incorporation  would  really  limit  the  responsibility  of  their  members. 
They  cite  the  recent  Taff  Vale  decision  in  England,  by  which  the  court  held 
that  a  trade  union,  though  not  incorporated,  could  lie  sued  and  mulcted  in 
damages  for  unlawful  acts  of  its  agents  in  the  course  of  a  strike.  At  the 
same  lime,  cases  have  recently  been  brought  against  individual  members  of 
trade  unions,  and  these  members  have  I>cen  held  liable  in  damages  for  injury 
il'inc  or  alleged  to  have  been  done  by  the  trade  union.  A  number  ^1  ad\o 
rates  of  incorporation,  therefore,  believe  that  unions,  even  if  unincorporated, 
;<rc  liable  or  at  least  that  their  individual  mcml>ers  arc  liable. 

It  is  probable,  though  not  certain,  that  a  union  is  already  responsible 
for  its  own  illegal  acts  and  for  those  of  its  authorized  officers  and  agents; 
and  incorporation  would  neither  increase  nor  decrease  this  responsibility. 
The  individual  unionist  is  equally  responsible  for  his  individual  acts,  and 
this  responsibility  likewise  is  not  increased  or  diminished  by  incorporation. 
It  would  not  1)C  possible  by  incorporation  to  make  the  union  responsible  for 


228  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

the  acts  of  unauthorized  members  or  sympathizers,  but  if  it  were  possible, 
this  would  constitute  the  strongest  argument  against  incorporation. 

One  of  the  great  drawbacks  to  incorporation  is  the  vagueness  of  the 
law  with  regard  to  the  rights  of  trade  unions.  There  still  remains  in  the 
minds  of  many  of  our  judges  a  belief  that  trade  unions  have  something  in 
them  inherently  unlawful  and  of  the  nature  of  a  conspiracy.  There  has 
been  a  tendency  to  consider  trade  unions  in  restraint  of  trade  and  labor  and 
opposed  to  public  policy.  The  judicial  decisions  upon  the  question  of  boy- 
cotting and  striking  have  not  been  uniformly  in  harmony  with  modern  ideas 
and  ideals,  and  such  things  as  peaceful  picketing  are  net  infrequently  visited 
by  the  censure  and  punishment  of  the  courts.  It  is  questionable  whether  in- 
corporation would  really  increase  the  responsibility  and  liability  of  trade 
unions,  but  as  long  as  the  law  remains  so  vague  and  so  capable  of  being 
used  as  a  weapon  against  the  unions,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  a  pro- 
posal, such  as  that  of  incorporation,  which  is  based  exclusively  on  its  sup- 
posed tendency  to  make  the  unions  more  liable  to  control  by  the  law,  should 
be  inquired  into  with  the  utmost  care. 

Perhaps,  to  a  certain  extent,  unionists  have  exaggerated  the  animosity 
of  the  judges  of  our  superior  tribunals.  It  is  believed  by  many  unionists 
that  too  many  of  our  judges  have  secured  and  maintained  their  positions 
through  services  rendered  or  services  to  be  rendered  to  large  corporations. 
It  has  also  been  felt  that  many  judges,  while  entirely  honest  and  well-mean- 
ing, have  been  brought  up  to  a  manner  of  thought  entirely  at  variance  with 
the  philosophy  of  trade  unionism  and  without  any  appreciation  of  the  dig- 
nity and  rights  of  labor.  The  fundamental  objection,  however,  is  that  the 
rigid  application  of  a  law,  even  if  well  conceived,  might,  through  the  fluc- 
tuating and  ever-changing  conditions  of  trade  unionism,  seriously  affect 
the  latter  and  prevent  its  growth  along  beneficent  lines.  There  are 
some  leaders  of  trade  unions  who  believe  that  with  the  incorporation  of  the 
unions  many  of  the  present  members  would  leave  the  organizations  and 
many  prospective  members  fail  to  join.  This  contingency  is  especially 
feared  in  the  case  of  the  non-English  speaking  elements  in  our  laboring  pop- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  229 

nlation,  who  might  not  understand  the  extent  and  limitations  of  incorpor- 
ated unions  and  might  harbor  toward  them  an  unfounded  jealousy  or  fear. 
Moreover,  it  is  recognized  by  both  workingmen  and  employers  that  the 
laws  of  incorporation,  as  they  now  exist,  are  not  adapted  to  the  incorpora- 
tion of  trade  unions.  No  law  would  encourage  incorporation,  unless  it  ex- 
pressly provided  for  a  form  of  association  distinct  from  the  ordinary  busi- 
ness corporation,  unless  it  protected  collective  bargaining  and  the  ordinary 
legal  rights  of  workingmen  on  strike,  unless  it  made  the  union  alone,  and 
not  its  unauthorized  members,  responsible  for  a  breach  or  violation  of  a  con- 
tract, and,  finally,  unless  it  was  so  conceived  that  the  unions  could  actually 
secure  the  same  legal  redress  from  employers  that  employers  could  secure 
from  the  unions.  At  all  events,  no  law  at  present  existing  among  either  the 
federal  or  the  state  statutes  would  be  sufficiently  flexible  and  sufficiently  in 
accord  with  modern  ideas  to  permit  of  the  incorporation  of  the  unions  on  a 
large  scale. 

The  intervention  of  the  courts  in  the  affairs  of  trade   unionism    is    in 
actual  practice  not  feared  on  account  of  any  prohibition  of,  or  punishment 

\  for,  illegal  acts.     Even  now  the  union  and  individual  members  and  ofrkvrs 
actually  concerned  are  apparently  responsible  for  illegal  acts  committed  by 

jthem.  \Yhat  the  unions  dread,  however,  is  the  interference  of  the  com;- 
in  matters  which  are  not  illegal,  in  other  words,  in  the  internal  management 
.Mid  economy  of  the  union.  They  also  fear  that  the  unions  might  IK-'COPIC 
the  victims  of  a  definite  policy  of  legal  persecution.  It  would  be  jfossiiik- 
for  hostile  employers  to  promote  litigation  between  the  union  and  indi 
ndual  members  not  in  sympathy  with  the  union  upon  questions  of  the  in- 
ternal policy  of  the  organization;  and  the  victory  in  such  cases  \\ould  n-t 
with  the  longest  purse.  If  an  individual  member  were  expelled  from  the 
union  or  suspended  or  even  fined,  it  might  be  possible  to  carry  his  case-  by  a;> 
peal  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  state,  if  not  to  the  supreme  court  of  ;he 
United  States.  Litigation  could  IK*  promoted  upon  the  most  trivial  pretext-;, 
and  the  funds  of  the  organization  could  be  spent  in  futile  attempts  to  defend 
it.  The  union  might  be  prevented  from  using  the  benefit  funds  for  strike 


230  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

purposes,  from  exercising  its  judgment  as  to  the  proper  and  politic  manner 
of  treating  an  employer,  or  as  to  any  one  of  the  thousand  and  one  questions 
of  every-day  policy. 

The  danger  of  submitting  a  union  to  the  intervention  of  the  courts  in 
its  every-day  affairs  is  foreshadowed  by  J.  W.  Sullivan  of  the  Typographical 
Union  of  New  York :  "A  union  has  ways  of  its  own  in  conducting  the  affairs 
that  relate  mainly  to  itself  and  its  membership.  It  is  a  big  self-governing 
family.  In  periods  of  strike  the  prescribed  order  of  written  constitution 
or  by-law  sometimes  proves  less  desirable  than  the  short  cut  obvious  as  a 
war  measure.  The  members  then  become  aware  that  in  drawing  up  their 
laws  they  were  unable  to  foresee  the  situation  confronting  them,  and  they 
may,  for  example,  unconstitutionally  confide  absolute  power  temporarily 
in  an  officer  or  a  committee.  In  times  of  peace  a  union  often  reaches  con- 
clusions and  interpretations  dictated  by  the  common  sense  of  a.  meeting 
rather  than  by  the  statutes  as  written,  leaving  the  majority  either  satisfied 
or  in  a  mood  to  accept  ,the  judgment  for  better  or  worse.  Such  proceedings 
may  relate  to  trials  of  members,  to  executive  session  work,  to  appropriation 
of  funds,  to  informalities  or  irregularities  in  elections  or  referendum  votes, 
to  the  opening  or  closing  of  books  for  inspection,  to  the  reading  or  the  silenc- 
ing of  reports,  to  appointing  or  dismissing  committees,  to  maintaining  dis- 
cipline, to  accepting  or  rejecting  candidates  for  membership,  to  suspending 
or  expelling  or  reinstating  members,  to  passing  judgment  on  aggressions  of 
employers  tending  to  end  in  strike,  to  investigating  the  conduct  of  mem- 
bers prejudicial  to  the  organization,  and  to  settling  questions  in  which  rule 
or  precedent  or  necessity  of  a  local  union  conflicts  with  international  union 
law.  In  all  such  proceedings  two  principles  usually  govern — self-preserva- 
tion of  the  union  and  good  fellowship.  A  popular  employer,  in  general 
fair,  who  in  a  fit  of  temper  has  wilfully  violated  a  clause  in  a  contract  or 
the  union  scale,  will  be  adjudged  innocent.  A  sound  and  active  union  man 
who  has  misappropriated  a  small  sum  will  be  found  not  guilty  and  given 
time  to  refund.  In  these  matters  an  unincorporated  union  is  in  the  main  a 
law  unto  itself.  It  is  free.  It  may  make  many  changes  in  its  internal 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  231 

methods  and  in  administration  without  lessening  its  responsibility  as  a  con- 
tracting party. 

"But  an  incorporated  union  would  in  all  these  steps  be  subject  to  much 
revision  and  correction  through  the  agencies  of  the  law.  Work,  here,  for 
judges,  lawyers  and  enemies.  The  incorporated  bod}-,  as  a  creature  of  the 
State,  must  be  kept  in  health  by  the  State.  Disturbers,  instigated  by  influ- 
ences inimical  to  a  union,  might  kindly  aid  the  State.  In  incorporating, 
a  union  would  have  admitted  non-kinsfolk  as  masters  at  the  family  table— 
the  judge,  of  another  blood,  come  to  set  things  right;  the  sheriff,  with  keys 
to  a  jail  and  a  money-sack  for  fines ;  the  policeman,  with  a  club  and  hand- 
cuffs. 

"These  officials  occasionally  regulate  family  affairs  now  in  the  unions, 
but  the  courts,  only  acting  when  called  upon,  refuse  to  interfere  if  the 
union's  proceedings  are  in  accordance  with  its  own  rules,  which  arc  subject 
to  change  at  the  will  of  the  majority.  But  if  these  rules  depended  for  reg- 
ularity upon  the  terms  of  incorporation,  and  if  informers  were  sent  into  the 
unions  to  report  infractions,  the  sins  of  unions  would  l>c  multiplied  and  the 
lawsuits  ensuing  would  work  pleasure  to  scabs.  The  knowing  are  fully 
conscious  of  what  they  are  saying  when  they  express  a  desire  for  an  increase 
of  the  authority  of  the  law  over  trade  unions.  They  would  wreck  them  from 
within/' 

It  is  a  fact  that  while  the  unions  are  frequently  berated  by  hostile 
critics  because  of  their  alleged  unwillingness  "manfully  and  courageously" 
to  incoqx>rate  themselves,  the  typical  capitalist  organi/ations  of  this  omntry 
have  followed  the  same  course.  As  has  been  before  stated,  the  ^rcat  asso- 
ciations of  employers,  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  the  Illi- 
nois Coal  Operators'  Association,  the  National  Typothctae,  and  so  torth. 
.\re  unincorporated.  F.ven  the  New  York  Stock  Kxrlrmgc.  an  organization 
composed  of  the  richest  ir.en  in  the  \\orld.  and  certainly  not  lacking  thv  ad 
vantage  of  good  legal  advice,  has  always  refused  t»  incorporate.  Other 
stock  and  produce  exchange-  h;.\c  adopted  ih<-  >  uiu-  course.  In  a  certain 
sense,  not  entirelv  fanciful,  the  Ne\\  Y-'ix  Stock  Kxcbange  is  a  labor  union 


232  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

— a  union  of  men  plying  the  trade  of  brokerage.  It  has  at  present  an  initia- 
tion fee  of  about  $80,000;  it  restricts  the  number  of  its  members,  refuses 
to  allow  them  to  divide  commissions  with  non-union  brokers,  and  establishes 
a  minimum  piece  price  for  work  and  a  maximum  working  day  of  five  hours. 
The  reason  given  by  the  Stock  Exchange  for  this  refusal  to  incorporate  is 
that  it  could  not,  if  incorporated,  maintain  untrammeled  powers  of  discipline 
and  would  be  liable,  in  the  case  of  any  action  which  had  that  object,  to  inter- 
ference by  the  courts  and  consequent  delays.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  injus- 
tice is  worked  through  this  refusal  of  the  Stock  Exchange  to  incorporate, 
and  affairs  are  conducted  as  honestly  and  efficiently  as  though  the  Exchange 
were  incorporated,  and  the  same  is  true,  upon  the  whole,  of  the  manufac- 
turers' associations  and  the  labor  unions  of  the  country.  What  the  unions 
desire  is  not  immunity  from  legal  penalties,  not  a  special  status  under  the 
law,  but  merely  the  opportunity  to  grow  up  unhampered  by  the  constant 
oversight  of  judicial  bodies,  frequently  antagonistic,  and  to  shoulder  in  the 
form  of  trade  agreements  the  responsibility  which  they  believe  they  should 
actually  assume. 

Within  a  short  time  the  demand  for  the  incorporation  of  trade  unions 
will  probably  grow  less  persistent  and  less  insistent.  Many  friends  of  trade 
unionism  now  advocating  incorporation  are  beginning  to  realize  its  limita- 
tions, and  the  foes  of  trade  unionism  are  taking  up  other  weapons  closer  at 
hand.  It  is  coming  to  be  realized  that  incorporation  does  not  necessarily 
mean  the  ability  to  attach  union  funds,  and  the  enemies  of  the  unions  now 
urge  that  an  ounce  of  injunction  is  worth  a  pound  of  incorporation. 

While,  therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  foresee  exactly  what  will  happen 
if  the  laws  are  so  amended  as  to  make  incorporation  a  benefit,  or  what  may 
ensue  if  hostile  enactment  or  hostile  interpretation  of  the  law  seeks  to  drive 
the  unions  into  incorporation,  it  is  probable  that  for  the  time  being  at  least 
the  great  mass  of  workmen  will  resist  a  proposal  the  advantages  of  which 
are  problematical  and  the  dangers,  real  and  imminent. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 
THE  CASE  AGAINST  THE  TRADE  UNION 

Trade  Unionism  before  the  Bar  of  Public  Opinion.  Sentence  First,  Trial  After- 
wards. For  Unions,  but  against  Unionism.  Grievances  Old  as  Unionism.  Does 
Trade  Unionism  "Destroy  Individuality?"  Does  it  "Tyrannize?"  Does  it  "Dictate?" 
Does  it  "Lower  Efficiency?"  Does  it  "Foster  Idleness?"  Docs  it  "Breed  Discon- 
tent?" Does  it  "Monopolize  Employment?"  Does  it  ''Reduce  all  Men  to  a  Level?" 
Machinery  and  Equality.  Minimum  Wage  and  Maximum  Wage.  Do  Trade  Unions 
Run  Counter  to  the  Law  of  Supply  and  Demand?  Recognition  and  Representation. 
Recognition  n  Means  to  an  End.  Trade  Unions  Fallible. 

I  X  the  eyes  of  some  critics  the  principal  grievance  against  trade  unions  is 
•  the  fact  that  they  exist.  From  the  beginning  there  have  always  been 
men  so  bigoted,  so  perverse,  so  blind  to  the  progress  and  needs  of  their  age 
that  they  can  discover  nothing  but  evil  in  popular  movements.  It  has,  it 
is  true,  become  the  fashion  of  late  for  men  of  this  class  to  disguise  in  a 
measure  their  uncompromising  hatred  of  trade  unionism.  They  aver  that 
they  "have  no  objections  to  labor  unions  if  properly  conducted;"  but  this 
proviso,  correctly  analyzed,  usually  means  that  the  unions  must  not  do  any 
of  the  things  for  which  they  are  organized.  The  attitude  of  these  men  is 
as  sensible  as  would  be  that  of  a  keeper  of  a  turnpike  who,  hating  and  fear- 
ing the  progress  of  the  age,  should  disclaim  hostility  to  railroads,  provided 
they  did  not  run  trains.  These  opponents  of  trade  unionism  are  like  the 
man  who  was  "for  the  law,  but  against  its  enforcement." 

There  is  nothing  either  good  or  bad  which  trade  unions  do  or  have 
done  or  can  do  that  has  not  at  some  time  been  made  the  object  of  attack. 
They  have  been  assailed  because  they  have  been  local  and  because  they  have 
been  national,  lx.-c.ause  they  have  been  mere  lighting  organizations  without 
funds  and  because  they  have  had  benefit  features  and  have  sub-  idi/ed  their 
battles  at  the  excuse  of  innocent  memlx'rs  desiring  hiMirancc.  because  they 

(233.) 


234  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

have  raised  wages  and  decreased  hours  and  because  they  have  not  benefited 
the  workman,  because  they  have  been  marked  by  "bossisnV  and  because  they 
have  been  unable  to  control  their  members. 

The  case  against  trade  unionism  may  be  said  to  consist  of  charges 
against  individual  persons  or  organizations  and  of  more  sweeping  charges 
against  organizations  in  general.  Everyone  would  resent  the  charge  that 
the  American  is  a  drunken,  lying,  thieving,  cheating,  murderous  criminal, 
although  individual  Americans  have  been  convicted  of  these  various  offenses. 
It  is  not  considered  unfair,  however,  to  bring,  a  series  of  charges  against 
trade  unions  or  against  "unionism  as  at  present  conducted,"  because  indi- 
vidual unionists  have  shown  that  they  share  the  failings  and  frailties  of  hu- 
man kind. 

Many  of  the  charges  against  labor  organizations,  that  they  limit  or  re- 
strict production,  that  they  prevent  the  introduction  of  machinery,  that  they 
limit  apprentices,  that  they  resort  to  violence  and  intimidation,  that  they 
defraud  and  delude  the  workers,  are  considered  in  other  sections  of  this 
book.  The  argument  that  trade  unions  do  not  keep  their  contracts  is  an- 
swered in  the  chapter  on  the  trade  agreement  and  elsewhere,  the  charge  that 
they  shirk  responsibility. is  discussed  under  the  subject  of  incorporation,  and 
the  allegation  that  they  are  law  breakers  is  treated  in  connection  with  the 
subject  of  strikes  and  of  the  injunction.  Sometimes  these  charges  are  made 
in  good,  sometimes  in  bad,  faith,  but  in  either  case  it  is  easy  to  show  that, 
as  a  general  rule,  they  are  absolutely  and  entirely  unfounded. 

The  complaints  and  grievances  urged  against  trade  unions  in  the  pres- 
ent day  are  not  new.  Ever  since  workmen  began  to  seek  a  higher  standard 
of  living  through  organization,  they  have  been  attacked  by  representatives 
of  the  employing  classes.  Thus,  as  early  as  1741,  when  the  English  wool 
combers  sought  by  organization  to  improve  their  condition,  it  was  asserted 
that  these  WTOO!  combers  had  "for  a  number  of  years  past  erected  themselves 
into  a  sort  of  corporation  (though  without  a  charter)  their  first  pretence 
was  to  take  care  of  their  poor  brethren  that  should  fall  sick,  or  be  out  of 
work ;  and  this  was  done  by  meeting  once  or  twice  a  week,  and  each  of  them 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  2^$ 

contributing  2(1.  or  3d.  towards  the  box  to  make  a  bank,  and  when  they  be- 
came a  little  formidable  they  gave  laws  to  their  master?,  as  also  to  them- 
selves, viz.,  That  no  man  should  comb  wool  under  js.  per  dozen :  that  no 
master  should  employ  any  comber  that  was  not  of  their  club:  if  he  did,  they 
agreed  one  and  all  not  to  work  for  him:  and  if  he  had  employed  twenty 
they  all  of  them  turned  out,  and  oftentimes  were  not  satisfied  with  that,  but 
would  abuse  the  honest  man  that  would  lalxwr,  and  in  a  riotous  manner 
beat  him,  break  his  comb  pots,  and  destroy  his  working  tools;  they  further 
support  one  another  in  so  much  that  they  arc  1>ccome  one  society  through- 
out the  kingdom.  And  that  they  may  keep  up  their  price  to  encourage 
idleness  rather  than  labour,  if  any  one  of  their  club  is  out  of  work,  they  give 
him  a  ticket  and  money  to  seek  for  work  at  the  next  town  where  a  box  club 
is,  where  he  is  also  subsisted,  and  suffered  to  live  a  certain  time  with  them, 
and  then  used  as  Ix^fore;  by  which  means  he  can  travel  the  kingdom  round, 
be  caressed  at  each  club,  and  not  si>end  a  farthing  of  his  own  or  strike  one 
stroke  of  work.  This  hath  been  imitated  by  the  weavers  also,  though  not 
carried  through  the  kingdom,  but  confined  to  the  places  where  they  work." 
(  Webb,  I  listory  of  Trade  Unionism,  p.  31.)  In  iKi>  ^ve  find  the  same  sort 
of  criticism  directed  against  the  journeymen  calico  cutters  by  the  masters  in 
their  trade.  "\Vc  have,"  says  one  of  the  masters,  "by  turns  conceded  what 
we  ought  all  manfully  to  have  resisted,  and  you,  elated  with  success.  ha\e 
been  led  on  from  one  extravagant  demand  to  another,  till  the  burden  has 
become  too  intolerable  to  be  borne.  You  fix  the  number  of  our  apprentices, 
and  oftentimes  even  the  number  of  our  journeymen.  You  dismiss  certain 
proportion  of  our  hands,  and  will  not  allow  others  to  come  in  their  stead. 
You  stop  all  Surface  Machines,  and  go  to  the  length  even  to  destroy  the 
rollers  before  our  face.  You  restrict  the  (  Ylindcr  Machine,  and  even 
dictate  the  kind  of  pattern  it  is  to  print.  You  ret  use  on  urgent  occasions, 
to  work  by  candlelight,  and  even  compel  our  apprentices  t<>  do  the  same. 
You  dismiss  our  overlookers  when  they  don't  suit  you  ;  and  force  obnoxious 
servants  into  our  employ.  Lastly,  you  set  all  subordination  and  good  order 
at  defiance,  and  instead  of  showing  deference-  and  respect  to  your  employers- 


236  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

treat  them  with  personal  insult  and  contempt.''  From  that  day  to  this,  the 
assaults  upon  trade  unionism  have  continued  unabated. 

The  present  chapter  would  easily  be  the  longest  in  the  book  if  an  at- 
tempt were  made  even  to  enumerate  the  charges  against  trade  unionism. 
Every  possible  accusation  has  at  one  time  or  another  been  brought  against 
labor  organizations,  but  many  of  these  charges  are  so  palpably  absurd  that 
their  bare  statement  is  a  sufficient  refutation.  The  unions  have  repeatedly 
been  adjudged  guilty  by  persons  who  have  not  taken  the  trouble  to  investi- 
gate the  facts,  the  usual  theory  appearing  to  be  "sentence  first,  trial  after- 
wards." 

If  hypocrisy  is  a  tribute  which  vice  pays  to  virtue,  then  the  smooth 
words  which  trade  unionism,  "if  properly  conducted,"  receives  from  its 
enemies  should  be  a  solace  and  a  comfort.  No  one  attacks  the  principles  of 
trade  unionism  more  fundamentally,  no  one  inveighs  against  the  actions  of 
unionists  more  bitterly,  than  the  man  who  claims  to  be  a  friend  of  labor  or- 
ganizations and  to  be  writing  in  their  interest.  If  ever  a  man  was  stabbed 
in  the  house  of  his  friends,  it  is  the  trade  unionist. 

One  of  the  most  violent  opponents  of  the  trade  union  is  the  President 
of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers.  In  discussing  the  opinions 
of  this  gentleman,  I  do  not  wish  to  appear  to  confound  his  criticisms  of 
trade  unionism  with  those  of  broader  men  opposed  to  us.  As  a  physician 
studies  a  symptom  in  its  most  diseased  and  violent  form  in  order  better  to 
make  observations  that  will  apply  in  cases  of  comparative  health,  so  I  pre- 
fer to  discuss  a  few  criticisms  of  trade  unionism  as  they  seem  to  appear  to 
a  one-sided,  hostile,  and  evidently  immature  mind.  The  critic  in  question 
deplores  trade  unionism  as  "a  system  that  coerces  and  impoverishes  the 
worker,  ruins  the  capitalist,  terrorizes  our  politicians  and  destroys  our  trade 
— a  system  which  seems  to  be  hopelessly  and  irredeemably  bad,  a  bar  to  all 
progress,  a  danger  to  the  state  and  a  menace  to  civilization." 

Trade  unionism  does  not  coerce  the  worker,  but  is  the  expression  of 
the  united  will  of  the  members  of  the  organization.  It  does  not  impoverish 
the  worker,  as  is  claimed  by  the  very  men  who  maintain  that  it  forces  em- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  237 

plovers  to  pay  excessive  wages;  it  does  not  ruin  the  capitalists,  but  rather 
tends  to  improve  their  condition  and  exalt  their  character.  That  it  terror- 
i/es  our  politicians  is  on  a  par  with  the  other  allegations. 

Organized  labor  does  not  stand  for  physical  force,  "for  the  law  of  the 
Huns  and  Vandals,  the  law  of  the  savage."  Neither  strikes  nor  boycotts  are 
won  by  resort  to  violence,  nor  does  either  of  these  involve  "a  despotism 
springing  into  being  in  the  midst  of  a  liberty  loving  people." 

Trade  unionism  does  not  demand  ''of  the  public  and  of  Congress  the 
privilege  to  violate  the  laws  forbidding  violence  and  property  destruction ;" 
it  does  not  extend  "its  tactics  of  coercion  and  intimidation  over  all  classes, 
dictating  to  the  press  and  politicians,  and  strangling  independence  of 
thought  and  American  manhood;"  it  does  not  deny  "to  those  outside  its 
ranks"  any  legal  privileges  whatsoever  and  does  not  interfere  with  any  of 
the  fundamental  rights  of  American  citizens. 

Trade  unionism  does  not  seek  "to  place  all  men  in  each  organized  trade 
on  the  same  dead  level,  as  respects  his  daily  output  and  his  daily  wage,"  and 

does  not  set  "a  premium on  indolence  and  incompetence."  It  sets 

a  minimum  not  a  maximum  wage,  and  is  of  more  benefit  to  the  efficient  and 
industrious  workingman  than  it  is  to  the  man  of  smaller  ability  and  lower 
calibre.  Its  leaders  are  not  "agitators  and  demagogues,  men  who  apj>eal  to 
prejudice  and  envy,  who  arc  constantly  instilling  a  hatred  of  wealth  and 
ability,  and  who  in  incendiary  speeches,  attempt  to  stir  up  men  to  seixe  by 
physical  force  that  which  their  merit  cannot  obtain  for  them."  Trade 
unionism  is  not  opix>sed  to  wealth  nor  to  the  wealthy.  It  demands  fair 
wages  and  fair  conditions  for  all  workers,  but  it  will  make  as  reasonable 
terms  with  a  multi-millionaire  as  it  will  with  the  poorest  <"'  smallest  em- 
ployer in  the  industry.  The  enemies  of  trade  unionism  rej>eat  and  repeat 
."•;;iin  the  economic  fall. icy  that  "organized  labor  -.t:ui<!>  tor  principles  that 
arc  in  direct  conflict  with  the  natural  laws  of  economics,"  that  they  seek  to 
impose  a  "man  ir.a  !e  plan  f<  .r  the  division  of  po\\rr."  instead  ot  "the  natural 
law  now  enforced."  If  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  is  unalterable  a  law 
that  car.nol  be  changed  then  the  unions  should  n<>t  be  convicted  of  clung- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ing  it,  and  if  the  supply  or  demand  can  be  altered,  the  critics  should  show 
eood  reason  whv  trade  unions  should  not  influence  them  in  the  interest  of 

*>  •• 

the  workingmen.  It  is  also  claimed  that  trade  unionism  is  a  trust  and  the 
"creator  of  other  trusts,"  without  mentioning,  however,  that,  it  is  a  trust  to 
which,  as  a  rule,  all  may  be  admitted  on  the  same  terms  as  the  original 
founders.  The  less  irresponsible  and  unthinking  of  trade  union  critics 
vaguely  mention  that  trade  unionism  is  "foreign  to  our  soil"  and  '''destruc- 
tive to  the  best  interests  of  our  country,  industrially  and  socially;"  although 
the  only  basis  for  this  allegation  appears  to  be  the  fact  that  trade  unions  are 
opposed  to  the  merciless  exploitation  of  children  in  Southern  mills. 
Another  charge  against  trade  unionism  by  some  of  its  critics  is  one  which 
must  be  admitted,  namely,  that  it  tends  to  promote  conciliation  and  arbitra- 
tion. Conciliation,  remarks  the  aforesaid  critic,  is  "a  myth ;"  and  he  con- 
tinues, "an  attitude  of  conciliation  would  mean  an  attitude  of  compromise 
with  regard  to  fundamental  convictions,"  while  as  to  arbitration,  that  "is 
only  putting  off  the  day  of  reckoning."  "The  truth  is,"  he  continues,  "that 
arbitration,  to  employers,  means  a  surrender  to  the  demands  of  labor,  as 
surely  as  yielding  to  them  direct." 

According  to  a  wiser  and  more  temperate  adviser  of  labor  organiza- 
tions, "trade  unionism  is  an  artificial  institution  built  by  man  to  counteract 
some  natural  law."  This  is  an  old  and  a  false  conception  of  trade  unionism 
and  an  old  and  a  false  conception  of  natural  law.  If  by  natural  law  this 
critic  means  the  state  of  society  among  savage  tribes,  then  it  is  true  that 
trade  unionism  is  artificial,  since  it  would  have  no  place  there.  Trade 
unionism  springs  naturally  from  the  needs  of  the  workmen  and  is  as  natural 
as  "the  tendencies  which  it  seeks  to  counteract."  The  same  criticism  might 
be  levelled  against  all  institutions,  whether  they  be  the  school  system,  our 
system  of  law,  or  even  the  government  of  the  United  States.  The  law 
against  highway  robbery  is  as  much  an  "artificial  institution  built  by  man 
to  counteract  some  natural  law"  as  is  trade  unionism. 

The  cry  that  trade  unionism  is  un-American  is  raised  by  the  very  men 
who  are  opposed  to  the  trade  union  demand  for  an  American  standard  of 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  21Q 

• 

living.  Trade  unionism  rq)resents  a  democracy  of  the  poor — a  govern- 
ment of  workmen,  by  workmen,  for  workmen — and  it  stands  for  better  con- 
ditions and  more  equal  opportunities  for  the  great  masses.  True,  trade 
unionism  arose  in  England  earlier  than  in  the  United  States,  but  it  was  not 
a  direct  importation  to  this  country,  like  the  Engish  sparrow.  It  grew  up 
spontaneously  on  American  soil  from  the  needs  of  American  workingmen. 

It  is  frequently  urged  against  trade  unionism  that  there  have  always 
been  men  who  have  risen  from  the  ranks  without  the  aid  of  any  labor  or- 
ganization. The  opponents  of  labor  unions  point  out  many  self-made  men 
who  started  as  workmen  and  who  rose  to  the  highest  positions  in  the  indtist- 
trial  world.  The  workmen,  therefore,  they  l>clieve,  should  be  encouraged 
not  to  join  the  union,  but  to  attempt  to  do  as  these  successful  individuals 
have  done — earn  for  themselves  an  exceptional  position  in  society. 

The  error  of  this  way  of  thinking  is  the  ordinal'}'  mistake  of  bclicvin;1 
that  what  anyone  can  do  all  can  do.  .-hi\  native  American  boy  may  becon1. 
president  of  the  I'nited  States,  but  it  is  not  possible  for  all  of  then 
to  do  so.  In  the  same  way  it  is  possible  that  one  out  of  every  hundred  <>; 
every  thousand  workmen  may  rise  from  the  ranks,  and  that  one  out  <  ! 
every  million  may  Income  a  Scluxab  or  a  Carnegie,  but  for  the.  great  ma- 
jority this  hope  is  as  illusory  as  that  of  finding  a  fortune  in  the  streets  01 
of  winning  the  first  prize  in  a  lottery. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  while  the  trade  union  can  and  does  assist  the 
exceptionally  able  workman,  it  is  not  absolutely  and  entirely  essential  to 
him.  The  trade  union  appeals  to  the  great  mass  of  skillful,  soU-r.  indus 
trious  workmen,  who  are  a  credit  to  the  trade,  but  the  great  majority  oi 
whom  have  no  hopes  of  rising  out  of  their  present  (.'lass  \\liat  the  trade 
union  seeks  to  do  is  not  to  enable  carpenters,  machinists,  or  track  layers  t<> 
become  railway  presidents  or  bankers,  but  to  render  more  favorable  and 
more  humane  their  conditions  in  the  trades  in  which  they  already  work. 

The  argument  most  consistently  and  repeatedly  urged  against  trade 
unionism  is  that  it  tends  to  reduce  all  men  to  an  equality.  It  i>  alleged  by 
opponents  of  Ialx>r  organizations  that  in  tin-  good  old  times  IK* tore  trade 


240  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

unionism,  every  man  was  enabled  to  earn  as  much  as  he  wished  and,  there- 
fore, the  good  men  rose  to  the  surface  and  the  poor  men  sank  to  the  bottom. 

It  must  be  admitted  by  unionists  and  anti-unionists  alike  that  there  is, 
in  modern  industrial  life,  a  certain  tendency  toward  equality  of  workmen 
in  the  same  trade.  In  the  days  before  industry  upon  a  large  scale  existed 
and  before  division  of  labor  was  carried  to  its  present  extent,  greater  dif- 
ferences in  the  ability  of  individual  workmen  could  be  manifested  than  are 
possible  to-day.  All  men  are  not  equal  before  the  machine,  but  they  are 
more  equal  than  without  the  machine,  and  in  the  unskilled  trades  the  dif- 
ferences in  skill  and  earning  power  are  less  than  formerly.  The  substantial 
equality  upon  which  many  large  classes  of  workers  now  rest,  however,  is 
determined  by  the  employer,  or,  rather,  by  economic  conditions  themselves. 
In  many  large  industries,  the  wages  of  employees  of  a  certain  group  are 
fixed  in  a  lump,  irrespective  of  whether  one  workman  is  a  little  better  or 
a  little  worse  than  another.  There  will  be  small  difference  in  the  pay  of 
members  of  a  gang  of  street  laborers  engaged  in  construction  work  on  a 
railroad  or  in  rough  work  around  the  docks,  this  being  true  whether  these 
men  are  organized  or  unorganized.  In  many  places  a  man  who  enters  a 
large  establishment  leaves  even  his  name  at  the  door  and  becomes  No.  647 
or  123  as  soon  as  he  dons  his  working  clothes.  The  growth  of  industry  on 
a  large  scale  necessarily  wipes  out  many  individual  differences  in  skill  and 
to  a  certain  extent  equalizes  for  large  groups  wages,  hours  of  labor,  and 
conditions  of  work  to  the  point  of  merging  the  very  identity  of  the  work- 
ingman  into  that  of  the  group  to  which  he  is  assigned. 

The  trade  union  does  not  increase  this  levelling  tendency  and  does  not 
even  perpetuate  it.  If  there  is  a  levelling  at  all  in  the  trade  union  world, 
it  is  a  levelling  up  and  not  a  levelling  down.  The  only  levelling  which  the 
trade  union  does  is  the  elimination  of  men  who  are  below  a  certain  fixed 
standard  of  efficiency.  What  the  union  asks  for  is  not  equal  pay  for  all 
workers,  but  a  minimum  pay  for  all  workers.  The  employer  may  not  pay 
less  wages  than  the  minimum  to  any  man  whom  he  engages,  but  he  may 
generally  pay  as  much  more  to  efficient  workers  as  his  sense  of  justice  or 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  241 

of  policy  may  dictate.  On  the  mere  matter  of  speed  the  union  may  indeed 
set  limits,  if  the  evident  intent  of  the  employer  is  to  reduce  wages  by  means 
of  the  employment  of  pace  setters ;  but  as  a  rule,  higher  wages  may  be  paid 
for  speed  and  may  always  be  paid  for  more  skilled,  more  efficient,  more 
original,  or  better  work,  with  the  entire  consent  and  approbation  of  the 
trade  union.  The  trade  union  does  not,  except  in  exceedingly  rare  cases, 
set  an  upper  limit  to  what  men  may  earn,  but  this  is  frequently  done  by  em- 
ployers or  their  associations.  Thus,  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association 
forbids  its  members  paying  premiums  or  supplemental  wages  to  their  em- 
ployees, however  great  their  merit.  Notwithstanding  the  fact,  however, 
that  the  union  sets  a  minimum  rate  of  pay  and  the  operators,  the  same  rale 
of  pay  as  a  maximum,  there  are  great  differences  in  the  actual  earnings  of 
the  men,  corresponding  to  differences  in  their  strength,  industry,  and  gen- 
eral efficiency. 

As  a  matter  of  actual  practice,  it  must  be  conceded  that  in  many  cases 
the  great  majority  of  men  at  a  given  trade  or  operation  receive  the  mini- 
mum wages  demanded.  The  reason  of  this,  however,  is  the  unwillingness 
of  the  employer  to  pay,  and  not  the  unwillingness  of  the  men  to  accept, 
a  higher  wage.  If  a  manufacturer  is  employing  men  with  the  right  to  en- 
gage and  discharge  them,  he  is  probably  not  losing  money  on  the  la/.iest, 
least  skillful,  and  least  efficient  man  to  whom  he  is  paying  the  standard  rate. 
If  that  is  the  case,  it  is  probable  that  he  is  finding  the  labor  of  the  most  in- 
dustrious and  most  skilled  worker  very  profitable,  and  nothing  in  the  rules 
of  the  union  prevents  him  from  giving  a  jx>rtion  of  this  gain  to  the  .skilled 
workman  in  the  form  of  an  addition  to  his  wages. 

It  is  frequently  urged  against  trade  unionism  that  the  increases  in 
wages  obtained  are  only  tcmi>orary.  since  the  higher  wages  attract  more 
men  from  other  industries  or  from  other  sections  of  the  same  industry. 
In  a  measure  this  is  true.  It  is  impossible  to  maintain  wages  in  a 
given  industry  alx/vc  wages  in  other  sections  of  the  same  trade,  but  this 
merely  emphasizes  the  necessity  of  more  complete  and  general  organization, 
if  the  pressmen  of  Xew  York  are  fairly  well  organized,  whereas  no  organ- 


242 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 


i/ation  exists  in  any  other  American  city,  the  result  will  probably  be  that 
any  increase  in  wages  in  New  York  will  cause  the  poorer  paid  workmen 
from  other  sections  to  flock  there.  To  a  certain  extent,  wages  in  a  par- 
tially organized  trade  can  even  under  such  circumstances  remain  high, 
since  the  employer,  obliged  to  pay  high  wages,  will  engage  only  the  best  and 
most  efficient  men,  who  thus  become  unionists.  To  be  effective,  however, 
a  union  should  be  national  in  its  scope,  and  the  organization  of  the  few  can 
be  protected  only  by  the  organization  of  the  many. 

A  similar  argument  against  trade  unionism  is  that  it  enables  unionists 
to  benefit  at  the  expense  of  non-unionists.  If,  it  is  claimed,  the  Garment 
Workers,  the  Boot  and  Shoe  Workers,  the  Cigar  Makers,  and  the  Building 
Trade  operatives  all  receive  increases  in  wages  because  they  are  organized, 
whereas  the  barbers  and  waiters  receive  no  increase,  then,  it  is  claimed,  the 
cost  of  clothes,  shoes,  cigars,  and  buildings  (and  their  rent)  will  increase, 
and  the  barber,  or  waiter,  with  the  same  number  of  dollars  per  week  as  be- 
fore, will  be  able  to  get  less  for  his  money.  Even  if  this  statement  were 
true,  it  would  constitute  a  strong  argument  not  against,  but  in  favor  of, 
trade  unionism.  If  by  organization  real  wages  rise  and  if  by  lack  of  or- 
ganization real  wages  do  not  only  fail  to  rise  but  actually  fall,  then  the  un- 
organized trades  should  take  steps  as  soon  as  possible  to  establish  trade 
unions.  That  the  trade  unionists  do  not  themselves  believe  that  they  are 
taking  their  increased  wages  out  of  the  pockets  of  other  workmen  is  shown 
by  the  eagerness  with  which  they  themselves  seek  to  organize  these  other 
trades.  It  has  been  shown,  moreover,  in  another  place  that  the  increase  in 
the  wages  of  unionists  do  not  come  out  of  the  pockets  of  non-unionists  or 
of  the  general  public,  but  chiefly  out  of  increased  production  itself. 

It  is  frequently  made  a  rqjroof  to  trade  unionists  that  they  use  their  or- 
ganization for  the  purpose  of  increasing  their  own  wages  or  reducing  their 
own  hours,  and  this  without  thought  of  the  wages  of  other  men.  The 
unionists  are,  therefore,  accused  of  being  materialistic  and  without  ideals. 
In  this  claim,  less  than  justice  is  accorded  to  the  unionists,  who,  in  many 
cases,  work  for  the  welfare  of  others.  The  sympathetic  strike — whether 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  243 

justifiable  or  not — is,  as  its  name  implies,  a  sacrifice  made  by  one  body  of 
men  for  the  sake  of  the  well-being  of  another,  and  the  contributions  from 
one  union  to  another  during  periods  of  strike  show  the  strength  of  the  feel- 
ing of  brotherliness  and  the  willingness  on  the  part  of  unionists  in  one  trade 
to  make  sacrifices  for  unionists  in  another. 

\Yhere,  however,  the  workingmen  in  a  trade  union  are  seeking  their 
own  benefit  and  are  endeavoring  to  increase  wages  and  better  conditions  in 
their  own  trade,  it  is  not  fair  to  make  of  this  action  a  general  reproof.  The 
theory  of  trade  unionism  is  that  the  whole  army  of  workingmen  can  ad- 
vance only  by  the  progress  of  every  part,  and  that  each  union  should  secure 
better  terms  for  itself,  so  that  better  terms  may  be  obtained  for  all.  The 
cur] >enters,  cannot,  as  a  rule,  strike  for  higher  wages  for  brewery  workers, 
nor  the  quarry  men  for  higher  wages  for  barbers,  but  if  each  of  these  organ- 
izations strikes  for  itself  and  each  secures  from  the  others  such  financial 
and  moral  aid  as  is  possible,  the  result  will  be  an  improvement  all  along  the 
line. 

There  can  Ix;  no  doubt  that  high  wages  and  a  fair  working  day  arc 
good  things,  and  there  seems  to  be  at  the  present  time  no  better  way  of  se- 
curing them  than  by  the  tactics  now  pursued  by  trade  unionists.  It  is  im- 
possible for  the  unionists  of  the  country  to  get  together  and  frame  a  wage 
scale  for  all  employments.  Unionists  do  not  desire  the  same  wage  for  all 
trades  or  employments,  such  as  plumbers  and  tailors,  railway  engineers  and 
stone  cutters;  and  even  hours  of  Ia1x>r  and  conditions  of  work  must  be  dif- 
ferent in  different  industries.  As  a  consequence,  for  at  least  an  indefinite 
period,  unionists  will  be  obliged  to  secure  their  ends  by  each  trade  striving 
for  itself,  with  such  counsel  and  aid  from  other  unions  and  from  the  general 
public  as  may  be  secured. 

Many  more  charges  are  made  against  trade  unionism  with  even  less 
justice  and  foundation.  Many  of  them  are  based  on  false  information,  or 
false  intcr|jrretation  of  true  information,  or  on  broad  generalizations  from 
individual  and  exceptional  instance^.  The  argument  that  trade  unionism 
(.Ic.-Ums  individuality  is  el'  >e!\  rciatc<i  t»  the  charge  that  it  reduce*  all  men 


244  ORGANIZED    LABOR      ' 

to  a  level,  but  is  even  less  true.  The  union  does  not  take  away  from  the 
workman  the  opportunity  of  expressing  his  individuality  in  his  work,  while 
it  gives  him  new  opportunities  of  giving  expression  to  himself,  both  in  the 
administration  of  the  union  and  in  the  extended  leisure  which  it  se- 
cures for  him.  When  a  man  is  permitted  to  work  only  eight  hours 
a  day  and  may  devote  three  or  four  hours  to  self-improvement,  his 
individuality  will  be  brought  out  very  much  more  than  that  of  a  man  per- 
mitted by  the  union,  but  compelled  by  the  employer,  to  devote  twelve  or 
fourteen  hours  a  day  to  endless  repetition  of  a  single,  monotonous,  auto- 
matic movement.  Trade  unionism  demands  the  freedom  of  collective  bar- 
gaining between  associated  workmen  and  employers  or  associations  of  em- 
ployers, and  stands  for  an  equality  between  the  contracting  parties.  It 
therefore  does  not  "tyrannize"'  or  "dictate,"  but  repels  tyranny  and  dicta- 
tion. It  does  not  "foster  idleness,"  but,  by  means  of  higher  wages  and 
shorter  hours,  compels  greater  steadiness  and  greater  intensity  of  work. 
It  may  "breed  discontent"  or  at  least  give  expression  to  that  already  exist- 
ing, but  without  hopeful  discontent  on  the  part  of  workman,  as  of  employer, 
there  can  be  no  progress.  It  does  not  "monopolize  employment,"  since  the 
unions  almost  invariably  admit  to  their  ranks  as  many  qualified  workmen 
as  apply.  A  monopoly  which  admits  all  applicants  is  no  monopoly  at  all. 
I  do  not  wish  to  assert  that  trade  unionism  is  perfect,  or  trade  unions 
or  unionists,  infallible.  Trade  unionism  is  not  a  panacea  for  all  the  ills  of 
life,  and  neither  the  unions  nor  the  unionists  constantly  live  up  to  the  true 
principles  of  unionism.  Labor  conflicts  evoke  many  unwise  acts  from  both 
parties  to  the  contest,  and  even  in  time  of  industrial  peace,  workmen  err  as 
do  employers.  I  do  not  deny  that  trade  unions  and  trade  unionists  have 
occasionally  committed  grave  errors,  serious  indiscretions,  and  even  actual 
crimes.  But  to  build  upon  these  failings  a  charge  against  the  whole  trade 
union  world,  or  even  against  "trades  unionism  as  at  present  conducted,"  is 
about  as  wise  as  uncompromisingly  to  denounce  Christianity  or  the  Chris- 
tian churches,  "as  at  present  conducted,"  for  the  acts  of  individual  men  pro- 
fessing themselves  Christians.  The  evil  that  trade  unionism  does  lies  upon 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  245 

the  surface;  the  good  is  less  apparent,  buried  deep  in  the  grateful  hearts  of 
millions  of  men,  who  have  been  aroused  by  it  to  a  new  life  and  to  higher 
and  nobler  aspirations. 

Especially  in  a  period  like  the  present,  when  new  recruits  are  flocking 
by  the  hundreds  of  thousands  to  the  ranks  of  organized  labor,  it  is  wise  and 
just  to  exercise  a  certain  broad  tolerance.  The  raw  recruit,  more  zealous 
than  understanding,  commits  errors  and  excesses  impossible  after  -a  few 
years  of  membership  in  the  trade  union.  There  is  a  certain  supercilious 
criticism  and  a  certain  intolerant  haste  of  judgment  toward  the  men  who 
commit  follies  in  the  excess  of  their  zeal  for  a  noble  cause.  Far  wiser  in 
its  judgment  upon  this  matter  was  the  United  States  Industrial  Commis- 
sion, which  in  its  Report  to  the  President,  summarized  the  situation  in  the 
following  weighty  words:  "Men/'  it  said,  "who  have  been  accustomed  to 
absolute  submission  in  industry  show  the  same  faults  when  they  first  take 
up  the  burden  of  self-government  as  men  who  have  been  accustomed  to  ab- 
solute political  submission.  Only  experience  with  democratic  'forms  and 
methods  can  develop  the  good  that  is  in  democracy." 

Trade  unionism  welcomes  the  criticism  of  sober-minded  and  well- 
intentioned  persons  of  all  classes.  It  will  learn  its  lesson  and  will  listen  to 
the  judgment  of  men  who  see  its  faults  and  point  them  out  without  malice 
and  without  exaggeration.  It  will  not,  however,  be  influenced  by  the 
swarm  of  hostile  critics  who  openly  or  under  the  guise  of  a  seeming  friend- 
ship, assail  its  fundamental  principles  and  impugn  the  motives  of  its  most 
trusted  leaders.  The  justification  of  trade  unionism  in  the  past  has  been  its 
deeds  in  the  past.  Its  future  justification  will  be  not  any  set  form  of  prom- 
ises or  protestations,  but  the  work  which  it  will  carry  on  through  its  millions 
of  adherents. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 
THE  RIGHT  TO  THE  MACHINE 

Have  Machines  "Lessened  the  Day's  Toil  of  any  Human  Being?"  Trade  Unions 
Favor  Machinery.  Its  Advantages.  Union  Attitude  Misrepresented.  Former  Atti- 
tude of  Workingmen.  Machine  Riots.  The  Old  Evils  of  Machinery.  The  Machine- 
owning  Class.  Unemployment.  Long  Hours.  The  Loss  of  a  Skilled  Trade.  Not 
Prohibition  but  Regulation.  The  Long  Rim  and  the  Short  Run.  The  Least  Friction 
Possible.  Differentials.  The  Right  to  the  Machine.  Time  Work  and  Piece  Work. 
How  Trade  Unions  Introduce  Machinery. 

IN  the  year  1848  the  famous  political  economist,  John  Stuart  Mill," 
wrote  as  follows :  "Hitherto  it  is  questionable  if  all  the  mechanical  in- 
ventions yet  made  have  lessened  the  day's  toil  of  any  human  being."  These 
words,  spoken  not  by  a  trade  union  leader,  but  by  the  most  eminent  econo- 
mist of  his  day,  may  explain  to  some  extent  the  instinctive  hatred  once  felt 
by  the  workingmen  for  machinery.  Since  the  days  of  Mill,  however,  there 
has  taken  place  not  only  an  improvement  in  the  conditions  under  which  ma- 
chinery has  been  operated,  not  only  an  increase  in  the  advantages  and  a  de- 
crease in  the  disadvantages  arising  from  machinery,  but  also  a  gradual 
change  in  the  whole  attitude  of  the  workman.  Trade  unions  have  been 
foremost  in  this  change  of  opinion,  and  at  the  present  time  the  great  majority 
of  labor  organizations  are  desirous  of  promoting  the  introduction  of  ma- 
chinery, although  in  such  a  way  as  to  work  the  least  possible  injury  to  the 
wage  earner  and  to  confer  upon  him  the  greatest  possible  benefit. 

Trade  unionists  recognize  that  machinery  has  enormously  multiplied 
the  productive  power  of  the  community.  They  realize  that  the  work  done 
at  present  in  the  United  States  could  not,  without  the  aid  of  machinery,  be 
performed  by  three  times  the  present  population.  They  acknowledge  that 
machinery  has  cheapened  all  manner  of  products  and  that  the  artisan  can 
now  purchase  at  a  moderate  price  a  variety  of  necessary,  useful,  and  beau- 

(246; 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  247 

tiful  articles,  wholly  unattainable  a  century  or  even  a  generation  ago.  Fi- 
nally, the  trade  unionists  believe  that  machinery  has  not  permanently  de- 
prived large  masses  of  the  population  of  the  opportunity  to  work,  and  they 
recognize,  amid  the  evils  of  machinery,  great  and  enduring  benefits. 

Notwithstanding  this  attitude  on  the  part  of  trade  unions  it  has  con- 
stantly been  claimed  by  hostile  critics  that  the  unions  are  opposed  to  lal>or- 
saving  machinery  and  endeavor,  wherever  possible,  to  prevent  its  introduc- 
tion. This  claim  is  false  and  erroneous,  but  it  is  none  the  less  dangerous 
because  with  its  falsity  it  contains  a  certain  appearance  of  truth. 

It  is  far  easier  to  bear  false  witness  and  make  reckless  charges  against 
trade  unionism  than  to  understand  its  real  attitude.  This  attitude  has  been 
the  result  of  an  evolution  taking  place  during  a  period  of  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years.  When  machines-  were  first  introduced,  men  who  were  then  not 
organized,  not  united  into  trade  unions,  struck  blindly  and  instinctively  at 
them,  and  there  was  violence,  bloodshed,  and  arson.  With  the  passing  of 
each  decade  and  with  the  steady  growth  of  the  power  and  intelligence  of 
trade  unionists,  the  former  stupid  opposition  to  machinery  as  such  declined 
and  diminished,  until  at  the  present  time  all  but  a  small  minority  of  work- 
men arc  converted  to  the  view  that  machinery  is  a  necessity,  to  which  it  is 
foolish  and  unwise,  if  not  impossible,  to  offer  permanent  resistance. 

It  was  about  the  year  1760  that  the  earlier  machines  were  introduced 
with  the  result  of  herding  former  handworkers  into  the  factories  and 
large  cities.  The  effect  of  these  first  inventions  was  intensified  after  1785 
by  the  application  of  steam  power  to  the  new  machinery  and  the  substitution 
of  mechanical  power  for  that  of  man.  The  invention  of  the  locomotive  and 
the  steam  railway  and  the  newer  applications  of  electricity,  increased  the 
field  for  machines.  Eventually,  not  only  were  the  products  of  industry 
made  by  machines,  but  these  machines  themselves  were  made  by  other  ma- 
chines. 

Beneficent  as  machinery  has  upon  the  whole  pro\c«l  it>clf  to  be,  there 
is  no  doubt  that  at  first  its  effects  were  terrible.  The  despairing  attempts 
of  the  old  handworker  to  compete  against  the  new  machines,  and  the  him 


248  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ger,  starvation,  and  degradation  that  resulted  are  among  the  most  pathetic 
incidents  in  industrial  history.  The  workingman  felt  that  he  was  being  de- 
prived of  his  own  in  some  curious  way,  which  he  did  not  understand,  and 
the  machine  seemed  to  be  his  enemy.  In  hundreds  of  thousands  of  cases 
the  machine  drove  the  man  from  his  work  and  in  many  instances  substituted 
for  patiently  and  painfully  acquired  skill  the  services  of  an  untrained  laborer, 
or  a  little  boy  or  girl.  The  skilled  men  lost  their  positions  and  their  only 
asset,  their  knowledge  of  a  trade.  Men  advanced  in  years  lost  their  employ- 
ment and  their  hold  upon  life.  Thousands  of  workmen  were  kept  at  home, 
while  their  wives  and  children  worked  inhumanly  long  hours  in  the  dingy 
factories.  The  machine  turned  men  into  women  and  women  into  men. 
The  old  tool  of  the  workers,  like  the  sword  of  the  soldier  or  the  pen  of  the 
scholar,  had  been  their  friend,  their  assistant, 'their  very  own,  but  this  new 
machine  was  a  terrible,  soulless  monster,  to  which  they  were  chained,  to 
which  they  were  subject,  and  over  which  they  had  no  manner  of  control. 
The  machines  by  displacing  hundreds  of  thousands  of  workers,  created  in- 
tense hardship,  even  though  the  displaced  wrorkmen  were  eventually  ree'm- 
ployed  in  the  same  or  other  occupations.  Even  to-day  the  trade  unionist 
sees  the  great  loss  entailed  upon  workmen,  whose  painfully  acquired  knowl- 
edge of  a  trade  suddenly  loses  its  value,  and  he  also  observes  the  manner  in 
which  machinery  has  encouraged  the  work  of  women  and  fostered  the  em- 
ployment of  children.  Another  drawback  of  machinery  is  found  in  the 
extent  to  which,  in  many  occupations,  the  skilled  mechanic  is  converted  into 
a  mere  machine  tender,  occupied  possibly  for  a  whole  life  time  in  the  manu- 
facture of  a  hundredth  part  of  a  watch  or  a  shoe. 

While  the  trade  unionist  of  to-day  thus  sees  advantages  and  disadvan- 
tages in  the  use  of  machinery,  he  also  sees  the  absolute  necessity  and  inev- 
itableness  of  its  introduction  and  use.  There  is  not  even  a  respectable  mi- 
nority of  trade  unionists  at  the  present  day  opposed  to  machinery  as  such. 
^Thc  accusation  advanced  by  many  writers,  that  machinery  is  dirty,  ugly, 
disagreeable,  monotonous,  a  blot  upon  the  scenery,  and  an  affront  to  the 
artistic  sense,  is  not  given  much  weight  by  unionists,  even  though  a  part 


o  - 

e  s* 

ora  « 


sr  a 
cr  a 


c. » 

H 

a  ™  /~ 

<•>  _• 
<•»   < 

—  tr  ^ 

£n'  m 


o  z 
§"* 


t.  = 
s  £ 

a'® 


0.5 


THF.ODORE  ROOSEVFLT, 
President  of  the  United  States. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  249 

of  it  is  admitted  to  be  true.  Trade  unionists  know  that  they  cannot  do 
without  further  advances  in  machinery,  just  as  they  realize  that  they  could 
not  maintain  their  present  status  if  all  the  machinery  introduced  in  the  past 
were  to  be  suddenly  withdrawn. 

What  the  trade  unionist  desires  is  not  the  prohibition  of  machinery,  but 
its  regulation.  The  unionist  demands  first  that  machinery  be  introduced 
in  such  a  way  as  to  give  the  greatest  possible  benefit  to  all  classes,  with  the 
least  possible  damage  to  the  workman,  and,  second,  that  the  introduction 
of  machinery  shall  redound  to  the  direct  and  immediate  advantage  of  the 
workman,  as  well  as  to  the  direct  and  immediate  advantage  of  the  employer. 

There  have  been  many  arguments  advanced  on  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether,  in  the  long  run,  machinery  increases  or  decreases  the 
amount  of  employment.  It  is  claimed  by  some  that  the  cheapening  of  pro- 
duction which  comes  with  machinery,  means  an  enormous  increase  in  the 
number  of  positions  to  be  filled.  It  is  pointed  out  that  there  are  now  a 
million  men  employed  on  the  railroads  of  the  United  States,  whereas  there 
were  but  a  few  thousand  employed  on  the  stage  coaches  which  they  dis- 
placed. It  seems  to  be  true  that  the  total  amount  of  employment  has  in- 
creased or,  at  least,  has  not  decreased,  with  the  introduction  of  machines: 
that  while  some  industries  have  decreased,  other  industries  have  increased. 
the  numlxrr  of  their  employees,  and  that,  on  the  whole,  the  lalx>r  force  of 
the  community  is  more  advantageously  employed  at  the  present  time  than 
ever  l>efore. 

Whatever  may  l>e  the  ultimate  effect  of  the  introduction  of  machinery, 
the  immediate  effect  has  been  to  work  extreme  hardship  "ii  the  employee. 
The  workmen  who  are  obliged  to  work  longer  hours  or  more  intensely  for 
the  same  amount  of  pay,  or  who  are  thrown  out  of  employment  entirely, 
vill  not  l>e  consoled  by  the  fact  that  in  the  long  run  prices  \\-ill  be  reduced 
and  the  articles  which  they  manufacture,  cheapened  to  them.  The  union- 
ists believe  that  machinery  should  IK."  introduced  with  the  least  possible  fric- 
tion and  the  least  possible  hardship  to  individuals.  When  the  employer  is 
asked  to  increase  wages  or  reduce  horn's,  he  frequently  asks  fur  ;m  interval 


250  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

of  a  certain  time  in  order  to  allow  him  to  accommodate  himself  to  the 
change,  and  the  labor  unions  are  now  beginning  to  recognize  the  necessity 
of  making  great  changes  in  industrial  conditions  by  slow  degrees.  An 
equal  duty  should  rest  upon  the  employer  to  make  alterations  gradually, 
so  as  to  extend  the  effect  of  the  change  over  a  series  of  years,  and  thus  per- 
mit the  workmen  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the  new  conditions. 

It  is  felt  by  the  trade  unionists,  moreover,  that  the  workman  should  re- 
ceive some  direct  benefit  from  the  introduction  of  new  machines.  Apart 
from  the  fact  that  machinery  works  damage  indirectly  by  making  work 
more  irregular,  apart,  also,  from  the  fact  that  the  introduction  of  the  ma- 
chine often  means  increased  intensity  of  work  and  increased  wear  and 
tear  upon  the  nervous  system,  apart  from  all  other  considerations,  the  work- 
man should  receive  a  portion  of  the  benefit  which  is  derived  by  the  employer 
from  the  introduction  of  machinery.  Originally,  the  simple  tool  of  the 
workman  was  his  own  property,  and  any  improvement  in  this  tool  re- 
dounded to  his  own  advantage.  The  machine  was  an  extension  and  a  com- 
bination of  tools,  and  its  introduction  and  improvement  meant  a  gradual 
separation  of  the  workman  from  the  instruments  of  production.  The  vital 
fact  of  machinery  was  this — that  it  was  too  effective  to  permit  the  work- 
man's tool  to  compete  with  it  and  too  expensive  for  the  individual  workman 
to  own  it.  As  a  result,  there  grew  up,  separate  from  the  workman,  a  cap- 
italist class,  a  class  owning  machines  and  hiring  labor.  The  result  of  this 
separation  was  that  every  improvement  in  the  machines  was  to  the  immedi- 
ate, if  not  the  ultimate,  advantage  of  the  employer  and  to  the  immediate, 
if  not  ultimate,  detriment  of  the  workman.  The  majority  of  trade  unionists 
do  not  take  the  stand  of  the  Socialists,  that  these  machines  should  be  taken 
away  from  the  capitalist  class  and  be  owned  by  the  whole  body  of  workmen, 
but  they  do  claim  that  whenever  a  machine  is  improved  or  a  new  machine 
introduced,  a  part  of  the  advantage  should  go  to  them  immediately  in  in- 
creased wages  or  decreased  hours.  It  is  felt  by  the  unionists  that  this  is 
only  fair  and  just,  and  that  such  a  distribution  of  benefits  would  compensate 
the  workman  for  the  increased  intensity  of  his  work,  and  would  be  to  the 


ORGANIZHD    LABOR 


25I 


ultimate  advantage  of  the  employer  and  of  society.  The  claim  sometimes 
made  by  employers  that  the  whole  benefit  should  go  to  them,  since  it  will  be 
eventually  returned  to  the  Avorkmen  in  the  form  of  cheaper  products,  is  not 
reassuring  to  the  workingman.  He  has  so  often  found  promises  of  this 
sort  illusory  that  he  is  not  unnaturally  suspicious.  If  the  force  of  compe- 
tition can  distribute  the  benefits  of  a  new  machine  fairly  when  they  are  all 
in  the  hands  of  an  employer,  there  is  no  reason  why  it  cannot  do  so  quite  as 
effectively  when  part  of  them  are  in  the  possession  of  the  workman. 

Much  of  the  supposed  hostility  of  trade  unions  to  machinery  is  due 
merely  to  the  fact  that  the  unions  are  not  willing-  to  allow  the  employer  to 
secure  the  entire  benefit  from  the  new  machine  or  the  improved  process. 
Even  though  the  employer  has  bought  the  machine  or  the  process,  it  does 
not  entitle  him  to  subject  his  workmen  to  it  at  a  sacrifice  to  them  and  an 
advantage  to  him.  The  man  who  buys  a  machine  does  not  and  should  not 
have  the  right  to  all  the  profit  which  the  machine  can  exact  and  extort  from 
the  man  who  operates  it;  and  the  right  to  use  a  machine,  or  rather  to  I>c  used 
by  it,  is  one  which  should  l>e  paid  for.  just  as  the  inventor  is  paid  in 
the  form  of  a  royalty.  A  machine  is  in  a  certain  sense  the  property  not 
only  of  the  man  who  buys  it,  but  of  the  man  who  operates  it,  not  only  of 
the  man  who  invents  it,  but  of  the  society  whose  manifold  work  by  men 
of  research  have  made  its  discovery  possible.  The  inventor  receives  his 
reward  through  royalties,  or  through  a  cash  payment,  society  through  the 
cheapening  of  the  product ;  and  the  employer  and  employees  should  arrange 
among  themselves  for  an  equitable  distribution  among  them,  the  employer 
to  be  paid  for  his  increased  expense,  for  the  cost  of  equipment,  maintenance, 
and  risk,  and  for  his  enterprise,  while  the  workingman  should  lx«  paid  loi 
his  increased  exertion  and  should  be  given  a  share  of  the  bonus  above  that 
amount.  The  introduction  of  the  machine  should  be  done  u;»>n  what  may 
be  likened  to  the  cooperative  system,  and  the  machine  slu-nld  nnt  IK.*  used  to 
make  the  profits  of  the  employer  greater  and  the  pitfinre  <-\  the  employee 
less. 

Where  trade  unions  have  in  the  past  actually  attempted  to  prevent  or 


252  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

hinder  the  introduction  of  machines,  they  have  signally  failed.  It  is  as  im- 
possible as  it  is  undesirable  for  any  body  of  men,  however  large  or  however 
well-organized, -to  prevent  permanently  the  introduction  of  labor-saving  de- 
vices. Where  trade  unions  have  in  the  past  adopted  this  policy,  the  result 
has  simply  been  to  send  the  new  machines  into  non-union  establishments, 
and  by  means  of  the  competition  of  the  new  with  the  old,  of  the  better  with 
the  worse  methods  of  production  gradually  to  lower  and  reduce  the  union 
scale.  While  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  sudden  introduction  of  ma- 
chines often  works  great  hardship  to  wTorkingmen,  the  method  of  securing 
redress  is  not  by  fighting  the  machine  but  by  obtaining  control  of  it.  Both 
English  and  American  unions  have  done  this  in  a  number  of  instances  and 
have  been  accorded  the  right  to  man  the  new  machines.  The  result  has 
been  an  elevation  of  the  standard  of  living  of  the  men  who  worked  upon  the 
new  machines  as  well  as  of  men  who  worked  by  the  old  process.  In  this 
way  the  Typographical  Union  has  entered  into  friendly  relations  with  pub- 
lishers, by  which  the  linotype  is  kept  in  union  hands,  with  the  result  that 
much  better  conditions  have  prevailed  and  larger  wages  and  profits  have  been 
secured  than  would  have  been  the  case  if  there  had  been  a  struggle  or  contest 
between  the  new  machine  and  the  old  union. 

As  a  matter  of  history,  trade  unionism  has  not  only  not  restricted  the 
use  of  machinery,  but  has  actually  encouraged  and  stimulated  its  applica- 
tion. It  was  formerly  cited  as  an  instance  of  "trade  union  folly"  that  the 
insistence  upon  high  wages  and  upon  other  expensive  conditions  led  to  the 
displacement  of  men  by  machines.  During  the  last  century  there  have  been 
many  instances  where  machines  have  been  introduced  because  the  men 
claimed  high  wages,  and  the  employer  was  obliged  to  economize.  The  more 
costly  labor  becomes,  the  greater  the  advantage  of  economizing  it,  and  in 
no  country  has  the  invention  of  machinery  been  so  stimulated  and  gone  on 
at  so  rapid  a  pace  as  in  England  and  the  United  States,  the  countries  in 
which  trade  unions  are  strongest.  Even  strikes  themselves  have  had  this 
result,  and  many  of  the  most  improved  methods  of  production  have  origi- 
nated from  the  necessity  of  doing  with  little  labor.  Trade  unions,  more- 


ORGAN'IZED    LABOR  253 

over,  have  consciously  adopted  the  policy  of  encouraging  inventions  and 
the  nse  of  machinery.  Unionists  realize  that,  by  insisting1  upon  a  standard 
rate  of  pay,  a  maximum  working  day,  and  a  certain  minimum  of  safety  and 
comfort  for  the  workman,  factories  which  are  not  equipped  with  mod- 
ern machinery  must  eventually  be  forced  out  of  business.  The  theory  of  trade 
unions  is  that  the  manufacturer  must  either  equip  his  factory  with  modern 
labor-saving  devices  or  else  suffer  by  competition,  but  that  he  may  not  pay 
lower  wages  because  of  his  unwillingness  to  secure  the  l>est  machinery. 
\Yhere  trade  unions  do  not  exist,  employers  with  the  worst  and  oldest  ma- 
chinery and  the  most  antiquated  methods  manage  to  eke  out  a  precarious 
existence  by  underpaying  and  starving  their  workmen,  but  where  trade 
unionism  is  able  to  enforce  a  definite  minimum  wage,  these  less  skilful  and 
less  adequately  equipped  manufacturers  must  either  introduce  the  modern 
appliances  or  go  to  the  wall.  As  a  consequence,  the  countries,  the  industries, 
and  even  the  individual  establishments  where  trade  unionism  is  strongest 
are  those  in  which  machinery  is  applied  earliest  and  to  the  largest  extent. 


CHAPTER  XXIX 
THE  RESTRICTION  OF  THE  OUTPUT 

The  London  "Times"  on  Restriction.  Importance  of  the  Question.  Unions  Op- 
posed to  Restriction.  Efficiency  vs.  Restriction.  The  Attitude  of  Employers.  The 
Amount  of  Restriction  Exaggerated.  Restriction  by  Unorganized  Men.  The  Demand 
for  Shorter  Hours.  Rushing  and  Rate  Cutting.  Speed  and  Health.  Piece  and  Pre- 
mium Systems.  The  Theory  of  a  Work  Fund.  Attitude  of  Unionists  on  Restriction. 


A 


BOUT  two  years  ago  there  appeared  in  the  London  Times  a  series  of 
articles  attacking  British  trade  unions  for  alleged  restriction  of  the 
output  of  industry.  The  contributor  to  the  Times  asserted  that  many  of 
the  trade  unions  of  Great  Britain  were  consciously  and  deliberately  conspir- 
ing to  do  as  little  work  per  man  as  possible,  and  that  to  this  cause  the  com- 
parative decline  of  British  trade  and  commerce  was  to  be  attributed.  It 
IIMS  since  been  shown  that  these  claims  were  grossly  exaggerated,  and  that 
there  was  but  little  fire  in  all  this  vast  cloud  of  smoke ;  but  the  articles  in 
question  have  evoked  a  timely  discussion  as  to  the  manner  and  extent  to 
which  trade  unions  in  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  limit  the  output 
of  labor. 

No  problem  could  1>e  of  greater  importance  to  the  workingman  and  to 
the  country  at  large  than  this  question  of  restriction.  Upon  this  question 
there  should  be  no  room  for  difference  of  opinion  or  divergence  in  policy. 
The  output  of  labor  is  the  source  of  the  reward  of  labor,  the  basis  of  national 
prosperity.  AYhile  labor  must  defend  itself  against  aggressive  action  upon 
the  part  of  capital  and  while  a  seeming  restriction  of  output  may  occasionally 
be  necessary  to  avoid  evils  worse  than  actual  restriction,  the  unions  of  this 
country  should  singly  and  unitedly  take  a  firm  stand  against  the  policy  of 
limiting  the  output  except  in  so  far  as  the  output  may  be  restricted  by  limit- 
ing the  hours  of  labor.  The  slogan  of  trade  unionists  should  be,  and  is,  a 
fair  day's  work  for  a  fair  day's  wage  and  sufficient  pay  for  efficient  work. 

(254) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR*  255 

The  whole  question  of  restriction  of  output,  however,  throws  a  curious 
light  upon  some  of  the  favorite  contentions  of  anti-union  employers.  The 
employer  has  always  taken  a  stand  against  what  he  terms  the  intermeddling 
of  dreamers  and  sentimentalists.  "Business."  he  has  maintained,  "is  busi- 
ness. If  the  workman  is  not  satisfied  with  the  wages  he  receives  and  the 
hours  of  labor  which  I  exact  from  him  then  he  ma}-  go  elsewhere  at  his  own 
will  and  pleasure.  I  shall  pay  him  as  little  as  I  must  and  get  from  him  as 
much  as  I  can;  but  if  he  can  do  better  elsewhere,  I  have  no  objection  to  his 
trying."  The  moral  aspect  ot~  the  labor  contract,  however,  suddenly  emerges 
for  the  first  time  when  the  working-man  has  the  advantage  and  seeks  to 
profit  by  it.  When  the  employers  inveigh  against  the  immorality  of  restric- 
tion of  output,  workmen  might  rq>ly,  with  perfect  logic,  4t\Vc  will  give  you 
as  little  work  and  extort  as  much  wages  as  possible,  and  if  you  do  not  like 
it  you  may  lock  us  out  or  close  your  factory."  The  workingmen  would  not 
be  right  in  adopting  such  an  attitude,  but  the  indignation  of  the  employers 
is  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that,  after  all,  there  /.v  a  moral  aspect  to  the  labor 
contract,  and  the  workingmen  in  sweated  trades  have  just  as  much  right  to 
appeal  to  the  conscience  of  the  nation  as  the  employers  would  have  ii"  a  de- 
lil>crate  policy  of  unjustifiable  restriction  of  output  were  enforced  against 
them. 

The  actual  amount  of  such  restriction  of  output  h;;s  been  magnified  and 
exaggerated.  It  exists  to  a  far  less  extent  in  Kngland  than  has  been  claimed, 
and  it  is  admitted  by  American  employers  that  its  extent  in  the  t'nited  States 
is  very  much  smaller  than  in  Kngland.  In  the  vast  majority  of  trades  theft- 
is  no  restriction  whatsoever,  and  the  number  and  membership  ot  trade 
unions  which  encourage  restriction  is  small  and  unimportant.  I'ut  MU  h  re- 
striction as  exists  is  not  an  invention  of  labor  unions,  since  even  unorgan- 
i/cd  workingmen  do  not  desire,  as  a  rule,  to  over  exert  thcmsi  Ives  miles. 
they  receive  a  compensating  increase  in  wagc^.  A-  a  matter  «>i  taet.  trade 
unions,  by  making  wages  higher  and  conditions  ,»i'  eni|>lo\  men!  nioie  i..v 
orable,  tend  to  stimulate  and  increase  the  activity  <>\  the  workmen  rather 
than  restrict  it. 


256  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

Tt  frequently  occurs,  however,  that  when  a  union  asks  for  a  justifiable 
reduction  in  the  length  of  the  working  day,  the  charge  is  erroneously  made 
that  the  union  is  seeking  to  restrict  the  output.  Again,  it  occasionally  hap- 
pens that  a  trade  union  is  obliged  to  urge  its  men  to  go  slow  in  order  to  pre- 
vent a  definite,  impending  injury  which  may  be  threatened  by  the  employer. 
In  the  machinery  and  many  other  trades  it  has  been  a  common  practice  on 
the  part  of  employers  to  resort  to  rushing  and  price  cutting.  This  process 
is  simple  and,  with  unorganized  men,  effectual.  Men  engaged  in  a  certain 
establishment  who  are  earning  three  dollars  a  day  and,  we  will  assume,  are 
finishing  three  pieces  of  work  a  day,  are  urged  by  the  adoption  of  the  piece 
system  to  greater  activity,  with  the  result  that  after  a  while  they  finish  four 
pieces  and  secure  four  dollars  a  day.  Immediately  thereafter  the  piece  price 
is  cut  to  seventy-five  cents,  with  the  result  that  the  men  still  earn  three  dol- 
lars a  day.  Again  the  workmen  seek  to  increase  their  output,  and  by  means 
of  extra  exertion  a  number  of  them  manage  to  complete  five  pieces,  where- 
upon, after  a  short  time,  the  piece  price  is  cut  to  sixty  cents  and  the  more 
efficient  workers  still  earn  only  three  dollars.  By  a  final  effort,  and  by  the 
most  intense  exertion,  by  the  partial  sacrifice  of  the  dinner  hour,  by  over- 
rushing  and  the  performance  of  poor  work,  the  most  able,  skilled  and  inde- 
fatigable employees  manage  to  complete  six  or  seven  pieces,  with  the  result 
that  after  a  short  lapse  of  time  the  rate  is  cut  again.  The  effect  of  all  this  is 
experienced  in  a  constant  tendency  toward  reductions  in  piece  prices,  which 
permit  a  few  men  to  earn  more  than  the  standard  rate  while  throwing  the 
majority  below  it;  and  which  results  further  in  the  breaking  down  of  any 
stationary  or  reasonable  rate  of  payment,  in  the  deterioration  of  the  quality 
of  the  work,  in  the  ill  health  and  often  serious  sickness  of  the  working-man, 
and,  finally,  in  the  ceaseless,  continual  falling  of  piece  price  to  a  level  where 
the  work  is  inadequately  paid.  This  example  is  not  an  isolated  experience, 
but  one  which  has  repeatedly  injured  men  in  many  trades.  The  alternate 
over-rush  and  under-cutting  tend  gradually  or  quickly  to  undermine  the  fair 
wage  scale  of  the  employee.  Still  another  device  of  somewhat  the  same  na- 
ture is  the  employment  of  men  of  exceptional  skill  and  endurance  as  pace 


M.\K<  Is      A.      I  {  \N\  \, 
Chairman  National  Civil   Federation 


U 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  257 

setters.  There  are  always  differences  in  the  ability  of  men  to  perform  work, 
and  both  employers  and  unions  are  willing  to  recognize  these  differences. 
Employers,  however,  where  pace  setters  are  employed,  assume  that  the 
wages  of  the  mass  of  the  \vorkers  should  be  determined  by  the  relation  of 
their  output  to  the  output  of  the  pace  setter;  whereas  the  unions  insist  that 
the  remuneration  of  the  great  mass  of  workers  shall  be  fixed  at  a  fair  min- 
imum wage  and  that  the  man  of  exceptional  ability  or  exceptional  endurance 
may  receive  a  bonus  above  the  regular  scale. 

Where  men  are  paid  by  the  piece  and  are  constantly  urged  by  pace  set- 
ters and  employers  to  compete  with  one  another  for  a  job  by  working  at  a 
constantly  increasing  rate  of  speed,  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  the  union 
should  interfere  to  counteract  this  evil.  If  a  man  performs,  through  extra 
exertion,  thirty  per  cent,  more  work  for  three  dollars  than  his  neighbor  does. 
he  will  be  preferred  in  the  selection  of  employees,  and  the  men  will  be  con- 
stantly over  stimulated  to  produce  a  given  result.  Where  there  is  an  undue 
and  unusual  exertion,  the  extreme  tension  of  work  injures  a  man  physically 
and  mentally,  with  the  result  that  men  break  down  and  at  an  early  age  be- 
come totally  incapacitated. 

The  pace  setter  has  been  frequently  used  as  a  club  to  depress  the  wages 
of  men  who  are  not  thoroughly  organi/.ed,  and  an  attempt  is  constantly  made 
to  speed  up  the  men  Ijeyoml  a  ix>int  compatible  with  health  and  permanent 
good  work.  If  a  man  is  to  be  employed  one  day  he  may  work  at  a  tremen- 
dous rate  of  speed;  if  he  is  to  be  employed  for  a  month  without  interrup- 
tion and  without  illness,  his  rate  of  speed  must  l>e  somewhat  slackened,  and 
if  he  is  to  be  permanently  employed  and  is  not  to  be  throun  upon  the  rnb- 
bish  pile  as  soon  as  he  attains  the  age  of  forty  or  forty-live-,  hi-  speed  and 
intensity  of  work  must  be  regulated  at  a  reasonable  rate-.  As  tin-  proidcm 
of  a  great  railroad  said  to  inc.  "We  employers  are  rc-|x  nibble  f'-r  the  anta- 
oiiism  to  piece  \\ork  and  arc  to  blame  for  any  restnrti.m  <.i  i.utput.  \\  e 
have  made  our  employees  do  work  running  that  ii  v.as  diMMuli  t<>  <1"  \\alk 
ing."  In  fact,  many  fair  minded  eni|-!*\ei  •>  <»f  tiie  jur^nl  <  ^  leo^ni/e 
that  by  ceaseless  cutting  of  the  price  of  \\ork  they  ha\e  >imply  lorced  men 


2$8  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

to  resort  to  some  means  of  self  defense,  and  the  remedy  applied  by  the  work- 
ingrnan  is  apt  to  be  harsher  and  cruder  than  that  which  the  employers  would 
have  imposed  upon  themselves.  The  present  agitation  among  some  em- 
ployers for  a  premium  system,  by  which  only  a  portion  of  the  gain  from  in- 
creased exertion  is  to  go  to  the  employee,  and  by  which  the  piece  rates  are 
to  be  considered  as  permanent,  appears  to  be  a  wholesale  admission  on  the 
part  of  the  employers  of  their  past  folly  in  unfairly  cutting  prices  and  over- 
rushing  workmen. 

Where  a  temporary  restriction  of  output  has  been  invited  and  justified 
by  over-rushing,  pace  setting,  and  price  cutting  by  employers,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  such  restriction  would  continue  to  be  justified  if  the  employer  were 
willing  to  afford  substantial  guarantee  that  these  evil  practices  would  not 
be  resorted  to  in  the  future.  It  is  to  the  interest  of  workmen  and  of  em- 
ployers as  well  that  all  restrictions  upon  output,  except  in  so  far  as  they  are 
clearly  and  obviously  necessary  to  prevent  loss  of  health  or  inferior  work- 
manship, should  be  permanently  and  completely  abolished.  In  the  few 
trades  in  which  restrictions  exist,  and  in  which  they  have  been  occasioned 
by  the  employers,  the  overtures  for  their  removal  should  be  made  by  the 
latter,  and  the  workingmen  should  not  put  obstacles  in  the  way  of  accom- 
plishing this  result,  but  should  evince  a  willingness  to  meet  the  employer 
half  way. 

When  the  unions  are  simply  attempting  to  mitigate  the  evils  which  re- 
sult from  pace  setting  or  over -exertion  it  is  not  fair  to  accuse  them  of  re- 
stricting the  output.  There  still  remains,  however,  a  belief  among  certain 
workingmen  that  restrictions  would  be  justified  by  the  desire  to  make  work. 
There  seems  to  be  prevalent  among  many  persons,  both  employers  and  work- 
men, the  idea  that  there  exists  only  a  certain  fixed  amount  of  work  to  go 
around  and  that  the  more  work  one  man  does  the  less  \vork  there  will  be 
left  for  others.  This  belief  in  a  definite  amount  of  work  to  be  distributed 
occasionally  tends  to  make  a  workman  go  slow  with  the  job  in  order  to 
make  it  last  longer,  or  in  order  to  make  work  for  others  who  may  be  unem- 
ployed, To  do  too  much  work  is  supposed,  sometimes,  to  be  "hogging  it," 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  259 

to  be  taking  the  bread  out  of  another  man's  mouth.  This  may,  occasionally. 
l:>e  more  or  less  true,  although  even  in  such  cases  the  employer  has  rights 
which  should  be  respected  and  a  man  should  do — as  he  ordinarily  does  do — 
a  fair  day's  work  for  a  fair  day's  wage.  For  the  whole  of  society,  however ,\ 
the  theory  is  not  true.  Within  certain  limits  the  more  work  done  the  morefl 
remains  to  be  done.  The  man  who  earns  large  wages  in  a  blacksmith's! 
shop  creates  a  demand  for  labor  when  he  spends  his  wages  in  shoes,  clothes, 
furniture,  or  in  books,  and  a  large  production  tends  to  make  his  product 
cheaper.  To  render  work  more  expensive  merely  for  the  sake  of  restrict- 
ing output,  is  to  lessen  the  amount  of  work  that  will  be  done,  and  it  is  only 
by  doing  a  fair  day's  work  that  a  fair  day's  wages  can  be  permanently  main- 
tained. The  wages  of  workingmen.  sooner  or  later,  fall  with  any  unreason- 
able restriction  upon  the  output,  and  what  is  of  still  more  importance,  the 
habit  of  slowing  up  work  permanently  incapacitates  the  workman  for  con- 
tinued and  intense  effort.  It  is,  therefore,  of  supreme  importance  that  the 
present  policy  of  American  trade  unions,  the  policy  of  non-restriction,  should 
be  continued  and  enforced.  The  future  of  the  trade  unions  of  this  country 
must  rest  upon  an  ever-growing  emphasis  upon  efficiency  of  work  and  suf- 
ficiency of  remuneration,  and  the  theory  of  the  restriction  of  output  must 
never  become  a  fixed  program  and  must  never  be  adopted  as  a  policy. 


CHAPTER  XXX 
THE  PASSING  OF  THE  APPRENTICE 

Former  System  of  Apprenticeship.  System  Older  than  Trade  Unionism.  Gradual 
Disappearance  of  the  Apprentice.  Wholesale  Employment  of  Children.  Apprentice- 
ship in  Certain  Trades  Increasingly  Difficult.  Lack  of  Training  at  Present  Time. 
The  Policy  of  Unions  toward  Apprenticeship.  Do  Trade  Unions  Unjustly  Restrict 
the  Number  of  Apprentices?  The  Exploitation  of  Child  Labor.  Industrial  Schools. 

ONE  of  the  problems  with  which  in  the  past  the  union  hrs  had  to  deal 
has  been  the  question  of  apprenticeship,  or  the  technical  education 
of  the  workman.  All  work  involves  a  certain  preliminary  training  requir- 
ing years,  months,  weeks,  or,  it  may  be,  only  days,  according  to  the  skill 
and  intelligence  necessary.  In  the  old  days,  this  skill  was  acquired  by  the 
system  of  apprenticeship.  At  the  age  of  fourteen  or  thereabouts  a  boy  was 
indentured  or  apprenticed  to  the  employer  and  remained  with  him  for  a 
period  of  seven  years  or  more,  obtaining  in  that  time  a  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  the  trade.  The  system  was  based  upon  the  mutual  advantage  to 
both  parties,  the  master  instructing  the  youth,  and  the  youth  receiving  small 
wages  or  none  at  all.  The  course  of  instruction  was  long  and  formal,  as 
was  the  case  with  students  of  law,  medicine,  or  divinity,  and  at  its  termina- 
tion the  youth  was  admitted  to  a  trade,  in  which  he  was  protected  from  the 
competition  of  interlopers,  or  men  who  had  not  served  a  like  apprenticeship. 
The  system  of  apprenticeship  was  not  invented  by  trade  unions,  but 
existed  for  many  centuries  before  the  modern  labor  organizations  were 
formed.  It  was  a  definite  formal  relation  between  employer  and  youth, 
regulated  by  guild  laws  and  later  by  the  law  of  the  land.  There  existed  at 
the  same  time,  however,  an  informal  apprenticeship  of  the  sons  of  journey- 
men to  their  fathers,  the  boys  learning  their  trade  directly  from  their  parents 
and  being  paid  or  not  as  the  latter  determined. 

(260) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  261 

As  long  as  industries  were  of  a  simple  nature  and  were  conducted  upon 
a  small  scale,  the  system  of  apprenticeship  worked  to  the  satisfaction  of 
everyone.  \Yith  the  growth  of  modern  industry,  however,  these  conditions 
changed.  The  introduction  of  the  machine  destroyed  the  value  of  much  of 
the  knowledge  formerly  acquired  by  apprentices,  and  the  division  of  labor 
frequently  rendered  it  unnecessary.  When  an  article  was  begun  and  com- 
pleted by  the  same  person,  a  knowledge  of  the  trade  was  a  thing  difficult 
and  tedious  to  acquire,  but  when  this  manufacture  became  divided  into 
twenty,  fifty, or  a  hundred  different  processes, each  process  a  simple  mechani- 
cal movement,  the  value  of  a  complete  knowledge  of  the  trade  became  purely 
fictitious.  The  introduction  of  the  machine  and  the  division  of  labor  meant 
specialization.  It  meant  the  performance  by  an  unskilled  man  of  a  single, 
simple  operation,  not  a  whole  series  of  operations  by  one  skilled  workman. 

The  apprentice  system  as  it  formerly  existed  began  to  crumble  away 
about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Children  styled  apprentices 
were  worked  at  nominal  wages,  but  were  not  taught  any  trade,  being  used 
merely  as  long  as  they  were  profitable  and  then  turned  adrift  upon 
society.  This  unscrupulous  exploitation  of  child  Inlxir  under  the  guise  of 
the  apprentice  system  has  been  a  standing  grievance  with  many  trade  unions. 
Under  the  pretext  of  apprenticeship  large  numbers  of  boys,  supported  prin- 
cipally by  their  parents,  are  brought  into  the  factory  and  kept  there  at  low 
\\ages  until  they  are  old  enough  to  demand  more  money,  when  they  are  dis- 
charged and  a  new  relay  of  boys  is  taken  on. 

As  a  result  of  the  breakdown  of  the  apprenticeship  system,  the  great 
mass  of  youths  to-day  receive  little  or  no  training  in  their  particular  trade. 
Even  when  there  are  no  abuses  on  the  part  of  employers,  the  unionists  sec 
their  trade  swarmed  with  crowds  of  boys  who  receive  no  regular  instruction 
and  who,  as  half-skilled  workmen,  .ire  after  a  few  years  injected  into  the 
industry.  Some  of  the  unions,  therefore,  desire  to  secure  the  introduction 
of  a  system  by  which  boys  can  obtain  regular  training  and  the  number  ot 
apprentices  to  the  trade  be  limited  or  adjured  to  the  real  needs  of  the  in- 
dustry. 


262  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

In  consequence  of  their  attempt  to  prevent  the  unregulated  exploita- 
tion of  children  under  the  guise  of  apprenticeship,  the  unions  have  been 
charged  with  restricting  their  numbers  and  with  attempting  to  establish  a 
monopoly  in  the  trade.  This  charge,  however,  cannot  be  maintained.  A 
careful  investigation,  made  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Webb,  revealed  that  the  British 
trade  unions  that  actually  and  effectively  restrict  the  admission  of  appren- 
tices l>elow  the  needs  of  the  trade  represented  less  than  one  per  cent,  of  all 
unionists  in  the  Kingdom.  The  percentage  in  the  United  States  is  prob- 
ably smaller.  Such  a  policy  would  necessarily  be  unsuccessful,  since,  as 
a  result  of  unduly  limiting  the  number  of  apprentices  in  union  shops,  the 
boys  would  learn  their  trade  in  non-union  establishments,  or  the  ranks  of 
labor  would  be  recruited  from  skilled  immigrants.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  is  usually  found  that  in  the  cases  in  which  American  trade  unions  actually 
determine  the  number  of  apprentices  the  employers  in  the  trade  are  unwill- 
ing to  take  on  as  many  apprentices  as  the  union  permits. 

While  in  certain  trades  unmodified  by  the  advent  of  machinery  appren- 
ticeship in  its  old-time  form  may  still  persist,  in  most  cases  the  system  of 
indenturing  boys  for  a  long  period  must  be  definitely  surrendered.  The 
boys  themselves  are  no  longer  willing  to  serve  this  protracted  apprenticeship, 
and.  as  a  general  rule,  no  opportunity  is  afforded  in  the  great  industrial  es- 
tablishments of  to-day  for  a  youth  to  acquire  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
trade,  even  when  such  a  knowledge  would  be  necessary  or  advantageous  to 
him. 

The  solution  of  the  problem  of  training  workmen  is  now  being  sought 
in  industrial  education.  There  is  growing  up  in  the  United  States  an  ever- 
increasing  number  of  industrial  schools,  well  managed  and  equipped, 
with  all  appliances  and  materials  necessary  for  turning  out  efficient  skilled 
workmen.  It  is  probable  that  in  the  future  many  skilled  mechanics  will  be 
graduated  from  schools  of  this  nature.  By  means  of  special  instruction  in 
the  manual  arts,  as  well  as  in  regular  school  studies,  the  boy  receives  a  gen- 
eral education  and  is  thus  enabled  to  start  life  better  equipped  than  the 
skilled  workman  of  a  generation  ago. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  263 

However,  there  is  one  feature  of  the  excellent  industrial  school 
system  of  this  country  which  requires  modification.  It  is  a  regrettable  fact 
that  a  large  number  of  the  graduates  from  these  schools  are  imbued  with 
a  hostile  spirit  toward  trade  unionism.  In  many  crises  the  instruction  is  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  fail  to  promote  sympathy  on  the  part  of  the  boys  for  the 
doctrines  and  customs  of  labor  organizations.  This  defect  should  be  rem- 
edied. Xo  line  of  cleavage  should  separate  the  shojvtaught  man  and  the 
school-taught  man.  The  boys  at  an  industrial  school  should  learn  not 
a  trade  alone,  but  methods  for  bettering  their  condition  within  the  trade. 
T  do  not  believe  that  graduates  of  industrial  schools  will  permanently  remain 
outside  the  trade  union  movement,  but  much  needless  friction  and  bitter  feel- 
ing might  be  avoided  if  their  instruction  were  of  such  a  nature  as  to  create 
in  them  a  sympathetic  feeling  toward  the  great  trade  union  movement. 


CHAPTER  XXXI 
THE  BOUNDARIES  OF  TRADES 

The  Definition  of  a  Trade.  Importance  of  Jurisclictional  Disputes.  The  Old 
Trades  and  the  Division  of  Labor.  The  "Trade"  Union  vs.  the  "Industrial"  Union. 
Wastefulness  of  Jurisdictior.al  Disputes.  The  Injustice  to  Employers.  Federated 
Unions.  The  Representation  of  Unions.  The  Necessity  of  Peace  between  Unions. 

IN  the  eyes  of  the  ordinary  man  the  most  incomprehensible  feature  of 
trade  unionism  is  the  trade  or  jurisdictional  dispute.  It  is  difficult  for 
anyone  not  versed  in  these  matters  to  understand  that  there  can  be  differ- 
ences of  opinion  as  to  the  trade  to  which  a  particular  piece  of  work  belongs. 
We  speak  of  a  trade  as  something  clearly  defined,  as  the  trade  of  a  carpen- 
ter, a  blacksmith,  a  tailor,  or  a  stone-mason.  There  are,  however,  hundreds 
of  cases  in  which  it  is  practically  impossible  to  determine  where  one 
trade  leaves  off  and  another  begins.  A  charge  frequently  brought 
against  unions  is  that  they  themselves  cannot  agree  upon  questions  of  juris- 
diction and  cannot  decide  to  which  group  of  workmen  a  particular  job 
should  belong.  The  problem  is  extremely  important,  since  it  is  injurious 
for  union  men  earning  three  dollars  a  day  to  be  displaced  by  men  earn- 
ing two,  whether  it  be  by  workmen  candidly  non-union,  or  by  members  of 
a  different  trade  union.  If  the  employer  is  to  decide  which  of  two  unions 
shall  receive  the  work,  he  will  invariably  give  preference  to  the  one  which 
does  the  cheaper  work,  and  he  may  not  hesitate  to  create  organizations  for 
the  express  purpose  of  underbidding  the  regular  unions  at  the  trade. 

The  conflicts  over  jurisdiction  between  various  unions  have  been  the 
result  of  the  growth  of  industry  itself.  At  one  time  the  blacksmiths  per- 
formed many  functions  now  relegated  to  other  workmen.  The  machinery 
trades  have  been  divided  and  subdivided  into  hundreds  of  different  pro- 
cesses. New  materials  have  been  introduced;  iron  has  taken  the  place  of 

(264) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  26$ 

wood,  steel  of  iron,  and  copper  and  other  materials  of  various  metals  since 
displaced.  At  one  time  a  watchmaker  made  the  entire  watch,  but  now  one 
set  of  men  make  the  main-spring,  another  the  hands,  still  another  the  case, 
and  so  on.  The  shoemaker,  who  makes  a  complete  shoe,  can  no  longer  se- 
cure a  position  in  the  factories  of  Massachusetts,  since  the  work  has  been 
subdivided  into  scores  of  simple  operations. 

This  change  in  the  character  of  industry  has  necessarily  brought  with 
it  corresponding  changes  in  the  scope  and  organization  of  labor  unions.  Ac- 
cording to  the  old  theory,  a  trade  union  was  an  organization  of  men  per- 
forming a  certain  given  function.  The  union  was  based  upon  the  fact  that 
all  its  members  j>erformed  essentially  the  same  work  and  required  essentially 
the  same  training.  All  the  carpenters  in  the  early  trade  unions  performed 
practically  the  same  work,  and  every  shoemaker  was  likewise  equal  in  all 
respects  to  his  fellow-craftsmen.  The  trade  union  existed  largely  for  the  pur- 
pose of  determining  what  period  of  apprenticeship  should  be  served,  for 
regulating  the  conditions  of  apprenticeship,  and  for  keeping  out  of  the  trade 
men  who  had  not  had  a  particular  training.  This  theory,  however, 
while  entirely  suitable  for  the  simple  conditions  of  former  times,  is  Incom- 
ing less  and  less  applicable.  Division  of  lal>or  has  put  an  end  to  many  old 
trades  and  has  created  hundreds  of  others;  and  with  each  new  invention. 
with  each  change  of  tools  or  material  wrought  upon,  the  boundaries  of 
trades  become  more  dubious.  With  the  change  from  wooden  to  iron  ships. 
the  lx>iler  makers  may  come  into  conflict  with  the  shipwrights,  the  carpen- 
ters, or  any  other  of  several  trades.  A  given  class  of  work  may  be  con- 
tested for  by  a  numlx'r  of  groups  of  workmen,  one  of  \\hicli  claims  it  U-- 
cause  of  the  material  worked  ujx>n.  another,  because  of  the  operation  JKT- 
formed,  another,  ixrcause  of  the  tools  used,  another,  because  of  the  character 
of  the  establishment  in  which  the  work  is  done,  another,  lor  any  one  of  a 
dozen  apparently  valid  reasons. 

The  problem  of  the  proj>er  jurisdiction  of  trades  is  complicated  by  tin- 
fact  that  organization  of  men  into  unions  is  carried  on  upon  distinct  and 
conflicting  bases.  There  are,  roughly  sjK'aking.  two  classes  of  unions,  the 


266  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

trade  union  in  the  narrow  sense  of  the  word1  and  the  industrial  union.  The 
trade  union  endeavors  to  organize  men  according  to  the  particular  work 
xthich  they  do;  the  industrial  union,  according  to  the  industry  in  which  they 
M-e  employed.  An  engineer  engaged  in  a  brewery  might  conceivably  belong 
to  a  brewers'  union  or  to  an  engineers'  union,  and  there  might  therefore  be 
a  conflict  of  jurisdiction  between  these  two  unions.  The  problems  thus 
created  are  extremely  intricate,  and  I  cannot  in  this  book  do  more  than 
merely  state  the  questions  at  issue.  The  solution  is  difficult  and  depends  in 
each  case  upon  special  and  particular  circumstances.  However,  a  few  ob- 
servations may  be  made,  which  show  at  least  the  general  direction  in  which 
a  solution  may  be  sought. 

The  importance  of  these  jurisdictional  disputes  cannot  be  overesti- 
mated. Much  of  the  opposition  in  this  country  to  trade  unions  is  clue  to 
the  fact  that  they  engage  in  strikes  over  jurisdiction,  and  it  is  claimed  by 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb  that  in  England  "nine-tenths  of  the  ineffective- 
ness of  the  trade  union  world''  is  due  to  the  "competition  between  overlap- 
ping unions." 

The  necessity  of  a  solution  is  more  obvious  than  the  solution  itself. 
Competition  between  rival  trade  unions  is  prejudicial  and  injurious  to  both. 
In  the  matter  of  friendly  benefits  as  well  as  in  trade  policy,  the  interests  of 
two  unions  competing  for  the  same  jurisdiction  will  inevitably  clash,  with 
the  result  that  competition  for  membership  will  ensue  on  terms  harmful 
both  to  the  members  and  to  the  unions.  Such  competition  for  membership 
on  the  part  of  unions  is  likely  to  lead  to  strikes  without  justification.  It 
is  also  likely  to  lead,  and  in  many  cases  has  led,  to  reciprocal  scabbing. 
\Vhen  the  members  of  one  union  claiming  jurisdiction  over  a  certain  trade 
have  struck,  the  members  of  another  union  have,  at  times,  not  hesitated  to 
put  in  their  own  men  at  wages  less  than  was  demanded  by  the  strikers,  with 


1  In  this  chapter  I  use  the  word  trade  union  in  the  narrow  or  strict  sense,  of  a 
union  organized  according  to  the  trade  or  operation,  as  distinct  from  an  industrial 
union,  like  the  United  Mine  Workers,  organized  on  the  basis  of  an  industry  or  busi- 
ness. In  other  chapters  I  use  the  word  trade  union  in  its  general  sense  of  labor  union. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  267 

the  result  of  recrimination  and  subsequent  retaliation  on  the  part  of  the 
members  of  the  injured  organization. 

There  are  difficulties  in  the  way,  both  of  trade  and  industrial  unions. 
The  trade  union  is  frequently  hampered  by  the  fact  of  its  comparative  weak- 
ness, especially  when  its  members  constitute  only  a  fraction  of  the  men  in 
the  industry.  It  is  further  weakened  by  the  fact  that  its  policy  may  l>e  out 
of  harmony  with  that  of  other  workmen  in  the  same  industry.  In  large 
industries  a  minority,  however  well  organized,  should  not  rule.  Thus,  in 
the  anthracite  mines  it  would  be  intolerable  if  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  men  and  boys  were  obliged  to  quit  work  owing  to  a  disagreement 
between  the  employers  and  a  few  thousand  engineers  upon  the  question  of 
wages,  hours  of  labor,  or  recognition  of  the  union,  while  the  engineers 
themselves  could  not  successfully  cope  with  the  operators  without  the  assist- 
ance of  the  other  men  in  the  industry.  The  interests  of  all  the  men  in  a 
given  industry  are  to  a  certain  extent  common.  Their  wages  may  differ 
but  in  a  general  way.  they  demand  the  same  hours  of  labor,  the  same  pn>- 
\ision  for  safety  and  sanitation,  the  same  methods  and  times  of  payment, 
the  same  holidays,  and  practically  the  same  legal  protection.  It  would, 
therefore,  not  l>e  possible,  and  certainly  not  desirable,  to  have  all  thc-e  men 
organized  in  individual  trades  and  to  permit  each  separate  organization  io 
make  whatever  contract  it  desired  with  the  employer,  irrcsjxictivc  "i  tin1 
\\elfare  of  others. 

An  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  industrial  unions  are  organized 
;nay  be  found  in  the   L'nited   Mine  \\orkers  of   America.      The  anthracite 
v  orkcrs  include    such    diverse    occupations    as    engineer,   firemen,   l.l.uk 
smiths,    pump    men,    machinists,    carpenters,    masons.    laborer-.    tr.nn-.tiv-. 
loaders,  dump  men.  plate  men.  drivers,  runnel-.  do<  >r  h«i\-.   inel  mm.  bar;, 
men.  ash  men,  oilers,  culm  drhers,  -late  picker-,  and  many  »t!u-r  <!:;--••- 
•.orkers.  who  could  not  l>e  organized  separate!}        I  lie  Central   ia<-t  ->i   tin- 
•  •rganization,  however,  is  that  a  large  percentage  oi  thc-e  men  ultimately 
Lecoine  miners,  or  other  workers  closely  related  to  them,  and  in  vie\\  <»i  tin- 
similarity  in  interest  of  the  overwhelming  majority,  an  industrial  unu>n  is 


268  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

formed.  An  industrial  union,  however,  should  embrace  not  only  all  the 
workers  in  an  industrial  establishment,  but  all  the  establishments  in  the  in- 
dustry. 

The  organiz^ion  of  mine  workers  must  include  not  only  all  the  an- 
thracite mines  of  the  country,  but  also  the  bituminous  mines.  The  anthra- 
cite operators  bitterly  complained  against  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  because  it  was  an  organization  which  controlled  the  production  of 
bituminous  coal,  which,  they  alleged  as  a  grievance,  was  a  competing  pro- 
duct. A  greater  ignorance  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  trade  union- 
ism could  not  well  be  conceived.  It  is  because  anthracite  coal  competes 
with  bituminous  that  the  mining  of  both  should  be  controlled  by  one  or- 
ganization. The  Mine  Workers  have  become  strong  both  in  the  anthracite 
and  bituminous  fields,  not  despite,  but  because  of  the  fact  that  these  two  pro- 
ducts compete.  There  is  a  point,  of  course,  where  the  competition  of  pro- 
ducts may  not  be  severe  or  direct  enough  to  warrant  the  inclusion  in  the 
same  union  of  the  men  engaged  in  the  industry.  Thus,  for  instance,  it 
would  be  unwise  to  include  in  the  Mine  Workers'  organization  the  men  en- 
gaged in  the  production  and  refining  of  oil,  but  the  position  of  the  friends 
of  industrial  unionism  will  be  made  clear  when  it  is  stated  that  it  would  be 
better  to  include  in  the  organization  the  producers  of  oil  or  of  any  and  all- 
sorts  and  kinds  of  fuel  than  it  would  be  to  include  the  miners  of  silver,  gold, 
or  copper.  In  other  words,  the  industrial  union  follows  the  employer  or 
the  product  on  the  market  and  does  not  concern  itself  chiefly  with  the  par- 
ticular and  specific  operation  performed  by  its  members. 

There  are  drawbacks  also  to>  the  system  of  organization  on  industrial 
lines.  To  a  certain  extent,  such  organization  is  more  modern  and  more 
in  accord  with  modern  methods  of  business.  Such  organizations,  more- 
over, overstep  the  bounds  of  the  particular  piece  of  work  done  by  the  mem- 
bers and  are  sufficiently  elastic  to  include  members  engaged  at  varying 
kinds  of  work.  On  the  other  hand,  they  suffer  the  disadvantage  of  uniting 
men  with  more  or  less  dissimilar  interests,  men  able  to  pay  high  dues  and 
men  able  to  pay  only  small  ones,  and  men  whose  wages  and  standards  of 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  269 

living  vary  greatly.  There  is  always  danger  in  such  a  union  that  the  in- 
terest of  a  minority  will  be  sacrificed  to  that  of  a  majority.  The  leaders  of 
an  industrial  union  should  be  careful  to  impress  constantly  upon  its  mem- 
bers the  necessity  of  paying  respectful  attention  to  the  demand  of  every  con- 
stituent group,  no  matter  how  small,  in  order  that  the  union  may  not  suffer 
from  secession.  The  danger  of  the  trade  union,  in  the  narrow  sense  of  the 
word,  is  constant  conflict,  owing  to  overlapping  jurisdiction  and  inherent 
weakness  resulting  from  small  numbers  and  isolation.  The  peril  of  the  in- 
dustrial union  is  that  of  secession  due  to  its  frequent  failure  to  represent 
the  interests  of  all  its  parts. 

The  most  satisfactory  method  of  compromising  the  struggle  l>etween 
these  two  classes  of  unions  is  found  in  the  formation  of  federated-  unions. 
In  the  building  trades  the  unions  have  become  federated  so  that  the  indi- 
vidual unions  may  strive  for  certain  of  their  demands,  while  the  federation 
attempts  to  represent  them  in  those  cases  in  which  their  interests  are  general. 

The  only  satisfactory  or  practicable  method  of  reconciling  the  differ- 
ences of  conflicting  unions  is  the  formation  of  federated  bodies  and  the  dele- 
gation of  authority  to  these  federations  to  settle  jurisdictional  disputes,  and 
to  act  as  a  body  upon  all  questions  affecting  the  common  interests  of  the  dif- 
ferent unions  exercising  jurisdiction  in  any  industry.  Thus,  the  va- 
rious unions  in  the  wood-working  industry  should  form  themselves  into 
a  federation,  and  similar  federations  should  IK'  formed  of  all  unions 
in  the  metal,  the  leather,  the  plumbing  and  steam-fitting.  :m<l  other  trades-. 
working  upon  materials  of  the  same  class.  Personally  1  U-lieve  that  much 
good  would  result  not  only  from  the  federation  but  from  the  actual  amalga- 
mation of  many  of  the  national  unions  now  exercising  jurisdiction  over  in- 
dustries of  the  same  character.  There  arc-,  at  the  present  time-,  live  national 
organizations  in  the  wood-working  industry,  each  of  these  claiming  juris 

'Those  unions,  which  arc  ornani/ations  consisting  <>f  separate,  practically  inde- 
pendent trade  unions,  should  not  he  confounded  wiili  "iVderal"  um»ns.  \\hich  arc  single 
organizations  of  miscellaneous  workers  organi/cd  1>>  the  Aim-man  Federation  of 
Labor. 


270  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

diction  over  certain  kinds  of  work  ;  in  the  metal  trades  an  equal  or  a  greater 
number  of  organizations  exists.  It  seems  to  me  that  by  amalgamat- 
ing or  consolidating  these  various  organizations  in  the  same  trade, 
i he  interests  of  all  the  workers  would  be  conserved.  Of  course,  as 
a  prerequisite,  all  unions  should  become  affiliated  with  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor.  There  are  some  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  for- 
mation of  these  federations.  The  principal  difficulty  is  that  of  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  various  unions  within  the  federation.  The  larger  unions 
desire  to  be  represented  according  to  membership,  but  this  system  may 
easily  be  used  practically  to  deprive  the  smaller  unions  of  all  power.  A  sin- 
gle union  in  the  federation,  or  a  coalition  of  two  or  three,  might  outvote  all 
the  other  members,  so  that  the  federated  body  would  cease  to  Ije  really  rep- 
resentative. On  the  other  hand,  an  equal  representation  of  all  unions  might 
give  a  disproportionate  power  to  a  number  of  smaller  and  minutely  special- 
ized industries,  which  would  give  control  to  an  insignificant  minority.  To 
reach  a  satisfactory  compromise  between  equal  representation  of  all  unions 
and  representation  in  proportion  to  membership  is  difficult  though  not  im- 
possible, and  there  will  be,  in  the  future,  a  movement  toward  the  federation 
of  unions  in  allied  trades,  especially  where  they  are  united  in  single  indus- 
tries or  enterprises.  Where,  however,  unions  are  strongly  localized  and 
where  the  vast  majority  of  members  are  engaged  at  work  which  is  approxi- 
mately similar,  or  are  apprenticed  to  such  work,  it  is  probable  that  the  in- 
dustrial union  will  persist. 

While  jurisdictional  disputes  are  unavoidable  from  the  very  nature  of 
industry,  it  is  only  fair  that  in  so  far  as  possible  such  disputes  should  be 
settled  by  the  direct  participants,  the  trade  unions,  without  drawing  into 
controversy  the  employer  and  the  public.  It  is  manifestly  unfair  that 
when  an  employer  is  willing  to  pay  union  wages  and  to  observe  union  con- 
tlitions  generally,  he  should  be  prevented  from  so  doing  by  two  different 
unions,  each  of  which  claims  the  work  and  each  of  which  will  prevent  the 
other  from  accepting  it.  The  question  of  jurisdiction  may  be  one  of  great, 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  27 1 

if  not  vital,  importance,  but  such  questions  should,  like  family  quarrels,  he 
settled  within  the  family  itself. 

To  a  large  extent  this  is  already  done  by  the  trade  unions.  The  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  has  accomplished  a  great  deal  toward  preventing 
the  outbreak  of  jurisdictional  disputes  and  toward  settling  them  where  they 
have  already  occurred.  In  this  matter  the  American  Federation  of  Lalx>r 
should  be  greatly  strengthened.  The  various  organizations  claiming  the 
same  work  should  be  compelled  to  submit  the  question  in  dispute  to  the  ar- 
bitration of  technically  equipped  special  committees  appointed  by  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor.  The  respective  claims  of  the  i>arties  to  the  dis- 
pute should  then  be  passed  upon  and  the  award  should  te  absolutely  final. 
The  national  unions  should  support  the  Federation  in  its  decisions,  and  all 
organizations  which  refuse  to  abide  thereby  should  l>e  punished  according 
to  the  judgment  of  the  Federation. 

It  is  important  that  any  decisions  arrived  at  should  be  national  and 
not  merely  local  in  their  scope,  and  that  they  should  IKJ  strictly  enforced, 
lurisdictional  disputes  must  cease  absolutely  to  l>e  settled  by  strikes,  and 
the  employer  must  be  relieved  of  the  burden  of  inter-union  struggles.  l"n 
til  some  form  of  arbitration  between  unions  is  established  upon  a  firm  basis, 
there  can  be  little  hope  of  a  permanent  strengthening  of  labor  organizations. 


CHAPTER  XXXII 
THE   UNIONIST  AND  THE   NON-UNIONIST 

Refusal  to  Work  with  Non-Unionists  Entirely  Legal.  The  Question  of  Policy. 
The  Moral  Question.  The  Rights  of  the  Individual.  The  Right  to  Join  the  Union. 
Why  is  the  Non-Unionist  on  the  Outside?  Initiation  Fees  and  Limitation  of  Numbers. 
Monopoly,  Open  Unions,  and  the  Exclusion  of  Non-Unionists.  Kinds  and  Classes 
of  Non-Unionists.  Robinson  Crusoes.  The  Men  who  do  not  Know.  The  Incapables. 
The  Strike  Breakers.  Non-Unionists  not  Victims  of  Conscience.  The  Non-Unionist 
played  off  against  the  Unionist.  Sentiment  and  Sentimentality.  Even  the  Non- 
Unionist  belongs  to  a  Group.  The  Railroad  and  Section  Hand  No.  347.  The  Non- 
Unionist  and  the  Fruits  of  the  Strike.  Loyalty  and  Gratitude.  A  Shop  Divided  against 
Itself. 

a  refusal  to  work  with  non-union  men,  labor  organizations  occasion- 
ally  excite  acute  irritation  among  employers  and  criticism  from  press 
and  public.  The  employer  feels  that  ini  taking  such  action  unions  dictate 
how  he  shall  run  his  business  and  encroach  upon  his  rights  and  upon  those 
of  the  non-unionist.  A  considerable  section  of  the  public. seems  to  believe 
that  by  this  course  the  unions  monopolize  employment  and  determine  with- 
out the  right  of  appeal  who  shall  be  permitted  and  who  forbidden  to  work. 

The  question  thus  raised  by  the  employer  and  by  a  section  of  the  public 
is  not  legal,  but  ethical.  From  a  strictly  legal  point  of  view,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  trade  unionists  or  others  have  a  perfect  right  to  refuse  to  work 
with  any  person  or  persons  for  any  reason  good  or  bad.  This  was  decided 
by  the  British  House  of  Lords  in  the  recent  case  of  Allen  vs.  Flood,  and 
American  courts  have  closely  followed  this  precedent. 

Whether  right  or  wrong  in  its  preconceptions,  the  public  is  perfectly 
justified  in  insisting  that  a  clear  light  be  thrown  upon  the  question  of  the 
treatment  of  the  non-unionist.  The  welfare  and  moral  health  of  the  com- 
munity depend  upon  the  protection  which  it  accords  to  the  individual  man. 

(272) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  373 

It  should  not  be  permitted  to  any  group  of  men,  whether  it  be  a  thousand 
or  five  million,  to  deprive  unjustly  a  single  induidual  of  his  sacred  and  in- 
alienable rights.  The  public,  or  at  least  a  portion  of  it,  feels  that  if  a  non- 
unionist  may  be  deprived  of  the  right  to  earn  his  living  at  the  only  trade 
which  he  knows,  the  same  punishment  may  be  meted  out  to  others,  and 
wage-earners  may  refuse  to  work  with  a  man  because  he  is  Catholic  or  Prot- 
estant, Republican  or  Democrat,  freckled  or  red-headed. 

In  discussing  this  question  people  are  liable  to  form  a  false  conception 
of  what  actually  happens.  The  union  workmen  who  refuse  to  work  with 
non-unionists  do  not  say  in  so  many  words  that  the  employer  shall  not  en- 
gage non-union  workmen.  The  dictum  of  the  trade  union  is  not  equivalent 
to  an  act  of  congress  or  of  a  state  legislature  prohibiting  employers  from 
engaging  non-union  men.  What  the  unionists  in  such  cases  do  is  merely 
to  stipulate  as  a  condition  that  they  shall  not  be  obliged  to  work  with  men 
who.  as  non-unionists,  are  obnoxious,  just  as  they  shall  not  be  obliged  to 
work  in  a  dangerous  or  unsanitary  factory  for  unduly  long  hours  or  at  in- 
sufficient wages.  Of  course,  when  unions  are  strong  and  include  all  the 
best  men  in  the  industry,  this  condition  amounts  to  a  very  real  compulsion. 
The  compulsion,  however,  is  merely  the  result  of  the  undoubted  legal  right 
of  workmen  to  decide  ui>on  what  terms  they  arc  willing  to  give  their 
labor,  and  the  employer  is  always  theoretically  and  often  practically  in  a 
position  where  he  may  make  his  choice  between  union  and  non-union  labor. 

Another  misconception  arises  from  the  frequent  confusion  in  thought 
of  refusing  to  work  with  non-union  men  and  molesting,  annoying,  or  injur- 
ing them.  Much  obscure  and  purposeless  discussion  might  be  avoided  if 
these  two  essentially  different  policies  were  kept  separate  and  di>tinct.  'I  he 
unionist  has  no  right  to  molest,  injure,  or  persecute  the  non-unionist,  al- 
though he  may  very  well  have  the  right  to  refuse  to  work  with  him. 

It  is  also  frequently  assumed  in  discussions  of  this  subject,  a^  of  the 
strike  and  the  l>oycott,  that,  1>ecausc  a  certain  compulsion  is  exerted  by  re- 
fusing to  \\urk  with  nun -unionists,  ihi.  <•<  impulsion  is  unjust  and  may  be 
compared  \\ith  the  use  of  physical  force.  There  could  be  no  more  fl.»;;rant 


274  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

error.  There  are  many  forms  of  compulsion  which  are  not  only  legally  but 
morally  justifiable.  If  the  workman  refuses  to  work  for  less  than  three 
dollars  a  clay,  he  compels  the  employer  to  pay  him  that  sum  or  go  without 
his  services,  and  if  the  employer  will  only  pay  two  dollars,  he  compels  the 
workman  to  work  for  that  sum  or  go  without  the  job.  Such  compulsion 
may  conceivably  amount  to  extortion  or  to  sweating,  as  the  case  may  be,  but 
it  is  absolutely  necessary  and  is  of  the  essence  of  every  contract  and  every 
arrangement  in  life.  To  refuse  to  work  with  non-union  men  is  to  no 
greater  and  to  no  less  extent  compulsion  than  for  a  life  or  fire  insurance 
company  to  refuse  certain  classes  of  risks,  for  a  church  to  refuse  member- 
ship to  certain  classes  of  people,  or  for  any  association  whatsoever  to  set 
conditions  under  which  it  will  have  dealings  with  certain  persons.  The 
Xew  York  Stock  Exchange  does  not  compel  men  to  join  it  (in  fact,  it 
costs  about  $80,000  for  the  privilege),  but  it  refuses  to  allow  non-members 
to  deal  on  the  floor  and  summarily  dismisses  members  who  split  commis- 
sions with  non-union  brokers.  The  compulsion  exerted  by  unions,  whether 
towards  non-unionists  or  employers,  must  be  judged  on  its  merits  and  must 
not  be  decried  merely  because  it  is  compulsion. 

The  refusal  of  unionists  to  work  with  non-unionists  is  frequently  made 
to  look  like  a  persecution  of  a  religious  sect.  Employers  arc  frequently 
heard  to  say,  "I  shall  choose  my  own  workmen,  be  they  black  or  white, 
Protestants  or  Catholics,  unionists  or  non-unionists.''  There  is  a  wide 
distinction,  however,  in  this  matter.  A  man  who  is  forced  to  join  the 
church  against  his  will  is  thereby  obliged  to  surrender  his  liberty  of  con- 
science and  to  conform  or  pretend  to  conform  to  certain  beliefs,  which  are 
possibly  repugnant  to  him.  The  union,  on  the  other  hand,  does  not  ask  a 
man  to  believe  in  anything.  A  unionist  may  be  a  Catholic,  Protestant,  Jew, 
freethinker,  protectionist,  free  trader,  socialist,  single  taxer,  prohibitionist, 
free  mason,  or  anti-vivisectionist,  and  may  have  or  profess  any  belief  of  any 
kind  or  nature  whatsoever.  In  the  matter  of  beliefs  the  trade  union  is  as 
tolerant  as  the  state  when  it  grants  citizenship,  or  the  insurance  company 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  275 

when  it  gives  insurance.     All  that  it  requires  is  the  performance  of  certain 
simple  duties  and  the  incurring  of  certain  common  obligations. 

Much  light  could  be  thrown  upon  this  subject  of  the  relation  between 
unionists  and  non-unionists  by  a  knowledge  of  \vlio  exactly  the  non-unionist 
is  and  why  lie  refuses  to  become  a  unionist.  There  are,  of  course,  several 
types  of  non-unionists,  just  as  there  are  several  types  of  unionists.  The 
character  of  the  non-unionist  will  l>e  different  according  to  the  character 
of  the  union  to  which  he  refuses  or  fails  to  belong.  Naturally,  all  men  are 
non-unionists  in  trades  in  which  there  are  no  unions,  but  in  speaking  of  nor. 
unionists  we  usually  mean  men  who  refuse  or  fail  to  belong  to  actually  ex- 
isting lalx)r  unions  exercising  jurisdiction  over  the  trades  in  which  they  are 
employed.  There  are.  therefore,  as  many  kinds  of  non-unionists  as  there 
;:re  reasons  and  causes  for  not  joining  a  union. 

To  a  slight  extent  and  in  a  few  and  infrequent  cases,  men  are  non- 
unionists  because  of  intolerable  conditions  existing  in  a  union.  It  may  and 
occasionally  does  happen  that  a  local  union  is  run  for  no  good  purpose,  and 
matters  may  even  come  to  a  j>oint  where  it  is  more  of  an  honor  to  l>e  outside 
than  inside  the  organization.  To  right-minded  men.  however,  the  path  of 
duty  would  even  in  such  cases  lie  within  the  union,  and  an  attempt  would 
be  made  to  prevent  abuses  by  action  within  rather  than  by  action  \\ithout 
and  against  the  organi/ation.  The  moral  right  of  leaving  an  organization 
is  like  the  moral  right  of  rebellion.  It  exists  when  conditions  are  intoler- 
able, but  it  should  not  be  exercised  for  light  or  trivial  reason-. 

Another  class  of  non-union  men.  few  in  number  and  not  unworthy  in 
character,  remain  outside  the  unions  because  of  strong  but  mistaken  ideals. 
There  arc  certain  men  who  believe  with  fanatical  zeal  in  individual  action, 
in  the  right  of  every  man  to  do  as  he  will,  no  matter  how  it  may  a  fleet  or 
influence  his  neighbor.  Thi^  is  the  philo^oplu  of  .1  i\<>hm^on  (  Yu-oe  or  of 
the  backwoods,  where  each  man  may  live  by  himself  and  be  a  law  unto  him- 
self, but  it  is  not  possible  in  a  civili/cd  community.  Tin  i:e  men.  therefore, 
however  honest  their  l>cliel\  are  in  their  apathy  or  artive  hoMilitv  t<»v.  ard 
l:d»«>r  "  ••rrani/alionv;  aetinir  ai/ain^t  the  intrre-t  of  thru  <-l.r-'-  and  of  ^IH-I^IV. 


276  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

The  great  majority  of  non-unionists  have  remained  so  largely  from 
a  comfortable  ignorance  regarding  labor  organizations.  Many  men  will 
welcome  an  idea  ff  it  comes  to  them,  who  will  not  leave  the  beaten  track  of 
thought  to  meet  it  half  way.  There  are  many  workingmen  who  do  not 
know  the  full  possibilities  of  trade  unionism,  just  as  there  are  people  who 
have  never  ridden  in  a  steam  car  or  used  a  telephone.  These  non-unionists 
represent  the  great  mass  of  the  unconverted,  without  active  feeling  for  or 
against  organized  labor,  and  it  is  from  this  multitude  that  trade  unionism 
is  recruited.  With  each  disturbance  in  the  labor  world,  each  growth  of 
trusts  and  combinations  of  capital,  larger  and  larger  numbers  of  the  unor- 
ganized non-union  men  see  the  advantage,  the  absolute  necessity  even,  of 
joining  the  ranks  of  trade  unionism,  and,  like  all  converts,  they  become  the 
most  ardent  adherents.  As  a  general  rule,  these  men  are  below  the  level 
of  intelligence  found  within  the  ranks  of  organized  labor.  Just  as  it  is  the 
more  active  and  intelligent  men  who  first  migrate  from  one  country  to 
another,  or  from  the  country  to  the  city,  or  who  push  forward  as  settlers 
into  the  wilderness,  so  it  is  the  strong,  intelligent  workingmen  who  are  the 
pioneer  unionists.  Men  not  wide-awake  enough  to  be  aware  of  the  advan- 
tages of  trade  unions  are  not  likely  to  be  as  intelligent  as  the  average  mem- 
ber of  such  organizations. 

The  majority  of  non-unionists  are  not  malicious,  only,  at  the  worst, 
stupid  and  apathetic.  However,  there  is  one  group  of  non-unionists,  the 
professional  strike  breakers,  but  little  removed  from  the  criminal  classes. 
Some  of  these  professional  strike  breakers  are  former  unionists,  men 
who  have  been  "dishononorably  discharged"  from  the  unions,  cashiered 
for  conduct  unbecoming  a  unionist,  if  not  actually  indicted  for  defal- 
cations or  other  offenses  against  the  law.  Others  have  never  been 
in  a  union  and  have  never  been  defiled  or  contaminated  by  work. 
There  is  growing  up  in  our  large  cities  a  class  of  men  employed  like 
the  mercenary  soldiers  of  the  middle  ages,  by  anyone  who  will  pay 
them  for  anything  that  may  be  asked  of  them.  These  men  accept 
employment  and  "no  questions"  asked.  They  arc  men  who  loaf  while 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  277 

honest  men  work  and  who  work  or  pretend  to  work  while  honest  men 
strike.  Some  of  them,  perhaps,  are  driven  to  this  course  by  grinding  pov- 
erty, or  terrible  distress,  but  this  is  true  of  the  man  who  steals  a  purse  or 
cuts  a  throat.  There  are  regular  organizations  of  strike  breakers,  men  who 
do  nothing  else.  Hostile  employers  have  never  been  chary  in  their  use  of 
these  reckless,  desperate  men,  just  as  they  have  not  refrained  from  engaging 
worthless  hoodlums  in  the  honorable  capacity  of  private  police.  The  in- 
stinctive "scabbing*'  of  former  days  has  been  elevated  into  a  fine  art,  and 
it  is  in  the  main  in  the  interest  of  these  men,  frequently  the  lowest  dregs  of 
a  corrupt  city,  that  the  employers  invoke  the  sacred  right  of  a  man  to  work. 
What  is  this  right  to  work  ?  It  is  commonly  assumed  in  the  argument 
for  the  non-unionist  that  every  man  has  a  right  to  work  when  and  where  lie 
will,  for  what  wages  he  will,  and  under  whatsoever  conditions  he  will.  If 
this  were  true,  it  would  follow  that  the  unionist  would  have  as  much  right 
to  make  the  dismissal  of  all  non-unionists  a  condition  of  his  work  as  the 
non-unionist  would  have  to  work  at  less  than  union  wages.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  no  man  and  still  less  no  woman  or  child,  lias  even  a  Ic^tl  right  to  work, 
except  under  certain  prescribed  conditions,  and  still  less  a  moral  right  to  do 
so.  The  laws  of  the  various  states  and  of  all  civilized  nations  prescribe  the 
conditions  and  circumstances  under  which  a  man  has  "the  right  to  work." 
Thus,  a  man  may  not  work  under  certain  unsanitary  conditions,  no  matter 
what  pay  l>c  offered  to  him  or  how  anxious  he  is  to  secure  the  job.  A  man. 
no  matter  how  skillful,  may  not  work  in  any  of  the  trades  or  professions 
in  which  a  license  is  required  without  securing  that  license  according  to  the 
law  of  the  land.  A  Chinaman  may  not  conic  over  to  this  country  to  secure 
a  position,  and  no  immigrant  is  permitted  to  accept  a  job  in  the  I  nitcd 
States  under  a  contract  made  previous  to  his  immigration.  A  woman 
may  not  work  over  sixty  hours  in  a  Massachusetts  textile  tartory.  and  a 
hoy  of  ten  may  not  be  employed  in  or  alxiut  the  mines  ot  Pennsylvania,  ho\\  - 
ever  much  he  and  his  parents  and  his  pros|>cctive  employee  may  desire  it. 
According  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  1'nncd  State*,  a 
Utah  miner  may  not  work  over  eight  hours,  no  matter  h<>\  ambitious  he 


278  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

may  be,  and  no  man  may  work  in  factories  or  workshops  that  have  not 
fulfilled  the  sanitary  requirements  of  the  law.  A  man  has  not  the  right  to 
contract  to  work  for  another  for  the  whole  period  of  his  life,  however  great 
the  salary  offered  to  him. 

The  legal  right  of  a  man  to  work  is  not  absolute,  but  is  based  upon,  and 
conditioned  by,  the  welfare  of  society.  A  man  has  no  more  legal  right  to 
work  when  and  where  and  how  he  will  than  he  has  to  endanger  his  neigh- 
bor's property  by  burning  his  own,  or  to  mingle  with  his  fellow-men  while 
suffering  from  some  infectious  disease.  Such  an  absolute  and  unqualified 
right  is  conceivable  in  the  backwoods  or  on  a  desert  island,  but  inconceivable 
in  a  civilized  community.  Society  endeavors  to  preserve  to  each  man  as 
great  a  measure  of  individual  liberty  as  possible,  but  where  the  right  of  a 
man  to  work  or  to  do  anything  else  conflicts  with  the  right  of  the  state  or  the 
welfare  of  society,  the  individual  is  obliged  to  forego  his  right. 

Subject  to  the  limitations  prescribed  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  several  states,  the  non-unionist  preserves  and 
maintains  a  legal  right  to  work  and  to  take  the  place  of  the  unionist.  The 
unionist  has  no  vested  interest  in  his  job,  and  the  non-unionist  may  legally 
take  it  whenever  an  opportunity  presents.  The  moral  right  of  the  non- 
unionist,  however,  is  decidedly  questionable.  ]  Just  as  the~mdividual  owes  a 
duty  to  society,  so  also,  though  in  a  less  degree,  he  owes  a  duty  to  his  class. 
The  non-unionist  as  well  as  the  unionist  is  a  member  of  a  class  in  society, 
with  class  interests  which,  though  not  in  necessary  conflict  with  the  interest 
of  others,  must  be  maintained  by  frequent  and  almost  constant  sacrifices. 
Nothing  that  the  workman  may  do  or  refrain  from  doing  will  make  him  less 
a  member  of  the  class  to  which  he  belongs.  As  long  as  he  works,  he  con- 
tinues to  belong  to  his  class,  with  the  interests  and  ambitions  and  aspira- 
tions of  that  class.  The  non-unionist  has  no  moral  right  to  seek  his  own 
temporary  advantage  at  the  expense  of  the  permanent  interests  of  all  work- 
ingmen.  It  may  pay  an  anti-unionist  to  defeat  the  hopes  and  aspirations 
of  his  fellow-men,  just  as  it  may  pay  a  man  to  be  a  traitor  to  his  country,  but 
neither  is  morally  justified.  I  hold  it  worse  to  be  false  to  one's  country  than 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  279 

to  be  false  to  the  great  class  of  working  men,  which  requires  the  support 
of  every  individual  member,  but  it  is  a  difference  in  degree  and  not  in  kind. 
"""  The  argument  for  the  non-unionist  usually  ignores  completely  the  ex- 
istence of  a  working  class  and  assumes  that  in  industry  each  man  acts  for 
himself  and  the  devil  take  the  hindmost.  One  would  imagine  from  read- 
ing the  tributes  to  non-unionists  that  each  workingman  acted  as  an  indi- 
vidual, secured  his  position  after  an  extended  conference  with  the  employer, 
after  mature  deliberation,  and  after  having  decided  upon  a  mutually  satis- 
factory rate  of  remuneration  and  mutually  satisfactory  conditions  of 
work.  Those  who  argue  in  this  way  cannot  be  aware  of  the  conditions  of 
industry  as  they  exist  to-day.  The  workingman  of  to-day,  be  he  unionist, 
non-unionist,  or  anti-unionist,  belongs  to  a  group,  and  whether  he  will  or 
not,  acts  with  his  group  and  is  treated  like  others  of  his  group.  When  a 
trackman  or  section  hand  asks  for  work  on  the  Pennsylvania  or  Southern 
Railroad,  he  is  not  treated  as  an  individual,  and  a  special  contract  is  not 
made  with  him.  He  is  No.  347  or  651  and  receives  the  pay  given  to  other 
section  hands.  He  works  the  time  worked  by  other  section  hands,  is  given 
leave  of  absence,  docked,  taken  on,  and  discharged,  treated  in  every  way, 
at  every  point,  and  under  every  circumstance,  exactly  as  other  section  hands 
are  treated.  The  Pennsylvania  Railroad  does  not  know  that  he  exists,  but 
simply  knows  that  so  many  hundreds  or  so  many  thousands  of  men  of  his 
type  are  employed,  at  a  given  wage,  for  a  given  number  of  hours,  and  under 
certain  given  conditions.  What  affects  one  section  hand  affects  all ;  a  com- 
pany's rule  applying  to  one  applies  to  all;  an  increase  in  wages  given  to  one' 
is  given  to  all;  the  man  is  and  remains,  not  an  individual  employee  con- 
tracting with  the  railroad  for  the  sale  of  his  labor,  but  one  of  a  homogeneous 
organized  group,  of  which  he  is  as  much  a  part  as  he  is  of  the  city  which 
shelters  him  or  the  state  of  which  he  is  r.  citizen. 

The  fact  that  at  bottom  employers  themselves  so  regard  the  working- 
men  is  shown  by  innumerable  circumstances.     Thus,  where    a    strike    for 
higher  wages  has  been  successful,  the    companies    invariably  apply  the    in 
crease  not  onlv  to  the  men  who  have  btruck,  but  to  the  non-unionists,  who 


2&0  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ostensibly  satisfied  with  conditions,  may  have  worked  throughout  the  strike. 
The  employers  say,  "We  must  not  let  men  who  were  loyal  to  us  during  the 
strike  suffer  through  their  loyalty."  Therefore,  these  employees,  although 
supposedly  satisfied  with  past  wages,  are  given  an  increase  equal  to  that 
giverr  to  the  dissatisfied  strikers.  The  employers  thus  recognize  that  there 
must  be  one  minimum  rate  prevailing  within  a  shop  and  acknowledge  at 
the  same  time  that  the  non-unionist  is  to  be  considered  in  modern  industry 
not  as  an  individual  workman,  to  be  separately  contracted  with,  but,  like 
the  unionist,  as  a  member  of  a  large  industrial  group. 

It  is  generally  felt  by  unionists  that  as  the  non-unionist  obtains  the  ad- 
vantage of  all  the  sacrifices  made  by  the  union,  he  should  also  share  in  these 
sacrifices.  The  union  feels  and  justly  feels  that  he  who  reaps  should  sow. 
It  is  peculiarly  galling  to  a  trade  unionist  to  find  that  the  men  who  during  a 
strike  derided  his  ideals  and  combatted  his  efforts,  the  men  who  "scabbed" 
while  he  was  striking  and  possibly  starving,  are  the  first  to  gain  by  sacrifices 
which  he  and  not  they  have  made.  It  is  not  in  human  nature  to  expect  that 
a  man  who  has  borne  the  brunt  of  the  conflict  and  the  heat  of  the  day  should 
view  with  equanimity  his  enemies,  or,  at  all  events,  his  lukewarm  allies,  en- 
joying the  fruits  of  his  toil  in  the  cool  of  the  evening. 

The  non-unionist  who  refuses  to  assist  his  fellow-craftsmen,  but  draws 
benefits  from  their  sacrifices,  should  not  consider  it  a  grievance  if,  at  the 
conclusion  of  a  successful  strike,  he  should  be  invited  to  join  the  union  or 
be  obliged  to  work  only  with  other  non-unionists.  To  these  men,  who  have 
riot  struck,  who  have  not  paid  dues,  who  have  not  borne  their  share  of  the 
expense  of  organization  and  of  struggle,  the  union  opens  wide  its  doors. 
Even  at  the  eleventh  hour  these  men  are  permitted  to  enter.  The  union 
is  usually  willing  to  let  the  dead  past  bury  its  dead,  to  clean  the  slate  and 
allow  the  non-unionist,  who  has  made  no  sacrifices,  to  join  the  union  upon 
the  same  terms  as  others.  All  that  is  demanded  is  that  the  cost  and  burden 
of  trade  union  management  and  action  be  fairly  shared  by  these  men  in  the 
future,  and  in  the  event  of  their  refusal  to  join  the  union,  the  members 
simply  refuse  to  work  with  them. 


CA 

IT 

oS'  > 

=r  TS 

~  !r 


RPSC 


«        o-       x 

5"  O     c 

13  P 


«  z    5? 

22? 
* 


H  -/ 


72    5? 

5  J'   P 

s;    ^ 


O 


u 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  281 

Apart  from  the  justice  of  the  non-unioni*t  paying  for  what  he  get*, 
there  is  another  question  of  equal  importance.  In  many  cases,  it  is  almost 
impossible  for  non-unionists  and  unionists  to  dwell  together  in  amity  in  the 
same  shop.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  personal  animosity,  because  men  who  are 
on  different  sides  of  a  question  may  oftentimes  be  friends,  as  the  pickets  of 
contending  armies  vie  with  each  other  in  friendly  services  upon  the  eve  of  a 
great  battle.  A  shop  with  union  and  non-union  men  is  like  a  house  divided 
against  itself.  There  is  a  constant  attempt  to  organize  it  entirely ;  an  in- 
cessant struggle  to  disorganize  it  completely.  If  the  non-union  men  in  the 
shop  are  ready  to  work  for  less  wages,  or  are  pliant  and  more  willing  than 
the  unionists  to  sacrifice  their  interests  for  the  sake  of  retaining  their  em- 
ployment, then  these  non-unionists  receive  all  the  benefits  of  the  existence 
of  a  union,  while,  at  the  same  time,  rendering  the  assurance  of  their  JX>M- 
tion  doubly  sure  at  the  expense  of  the  union  which  protects  them.  In  such 
cases  the  employer  discharges  union  men  whenever  there  is  necessity  to 
reduce  his  force  and  takes  on  non-union  men  whenever  there  is  need  for  more 
workmen,  the  only  fact  militating  against  this  tendency  being  the  genera! 
superiority  and  greater  excellence  of  the  union  workmen. 

Where  non-unionists  are  permitted  to  work  side  by  side  with  meml>ers 
of  trade  unions  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  their  wages,  hours  of  lulx>r. 
and  conditions  of  work  be  as  good  as  those  of  the  unionists.  The  great 
danger  to  the  union  lies  in  the  fact  that  ordinarily  a  non-unionist  who  i^ 
not  willing  to  pay  dues  is  still  less  willing  to  abide  by  the  union  wages  it"  it 
be  to  his  advantage  to  undercut  them.  While  accepting  the  union  scale 
when  work  is  plenty,  he  will  immediately  lower  wages  as  soon  a^  work  be- 
comes more  difficult  to  obtain.  The  result  of  a  miml>er  of  non-unionists 
cutting  wages  or  the  price  of  work  is  like  the  existence  in  a  community  01 
healthy  people  of  a  man  afflicted  by  a  contagious  disease.  Many  of  the 
weaker-kneed  unionists,  seeing  that  they  arc  losing  their  places  or  their  work- 
by  the  wage  cutting  of  the  tolerated  non-unionist,  will  also  either  openly  or 
secretly  accept  reductions  in  wages,  so  that  eventually  the  whole  wage  »calc 
is  broken  down  and  the  shop  or  industry  practically  disorganized.  In  som«r 


282  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

trades  it  is  possible  to  exercise  a  check  upon  such  wage  cutting,  but  in  others 
this  cannot  be  done,  and  in  these  latter  the  presence  of  non-union  men  prac- 
tically means  the  loss  of  the  shop  to  the  union. 

With  the  progress  of  trade  unions  and  their  growth  in  strength  there 
will  probably  be  a  lessening  in  the  intensity  of  feeling  against  the  non- 
unionist,  but  no  lessening  in  the  policy  of  exclusion.  The  hatred  of  the 
non-unionist  is  not  a  new  thing,  and  is  probably  less  severe  at  the  present 
time  than  it  formerly  was.  In  England  much  of  the  former  animosity 
against  the  non-unionist,  an  animosity  which  took  the  form  of  physical 
violence  and  a  refusal  to  have  intercourse  of  any  sort,  has  now  abated, 
although  the  policy  of  exclusion  has  become  more  and  more  general. 
For  instance,  the  British  textile  workers  insist  upon  the  employment  of 
union  men  only,  but  in  this  and  other  trades  the  exclusion  has  become  so 
complete  that  it  has  almost  ceased  to  be  felt.  A  union  card  is  a  matter  of 
course  and  a  matter  of  absolute  necessity  to  a  man  desiring  to  engage  in 
many  British  trades,  and  membership  in  a  union  is  considered  a  privilege 
and  not  a  burden. 

In  the  United  States  the  hatred  harbored  against  the  non-unionist  is 
much  more  intense.  The  American  unions  are,  upon  the  whole,  younger  and 
weaker  than  the  British  organizations,  and  the  field  is  more  favorable  to  the 
work  of  the  non-unionists.  This  is  especially  true  in  the  unskilled  trades. 
While  the  number  of  non-unionists  may  be  limited  in  the  trades  requiring 
skill  and  intelligence,  the  number  of  unorganized  workmen  flocking  into 
unskilled  trades  is  legion.  In  America  workmen  are  extremely  mobile  and 
can  be  shipped  from  point  to  point  by  the  train-load  by  any  manufacturer 
who  is  willing  to  incur  the  expense.  America  is  also  the  land  of  the  pro- 
fessional strike  breaker,  and  it  is  in  this  country  more  than  elsewhere  that 
racial  differences  and  jealousies  are  played  upon  in  order  to  crush  the  unions 
and  defeat  strikes.  It  frequently  occurs  that  an  Italian  who  would  not  take 
the  job  of  another  Italian  may  be  persuaded  to  take  the  position  of  an  Irish- 
man or  a  Pole,  or  vice  versa.  The  racial  jealousies  have  been  fanned  by 
employers  to  the  point  of  deadly  outbreak,  and  the  relations  between  negroes 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  283 

and  whites  have  been  intensified  and  aggravated  by  the  deliberate  policy 
of  employers  in  using  negroes  as  strike  breakers.  The  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America,  however,  have  demonstrated  that  with  proper  organi- 
zation and  patient  education,  these  racial  animosities  may  be  allayed  and  the 
problem  of  the  non-unionist,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  eliminated. 

As  before  stated,  the  unionist  has  a  perfect  legal  and  moral  right  to 
refuse  to  work  with  the  non-unionist,  and  as  time  goes  on,  the  exclusion 
of  the  latter  will  become  more  and  more  complete.  The  employers,  who 
are  even  now  endeavoring  to  extend  the  responsibility  of  unions,  will,  to  a 
greater  extent,  desire  that  these  organizations  be  morally  responsible  for 
the  conduct  of  all  the  employees.  With  the  rapid  extension  of  trade  unions, 
the  tendency  is  towards  the  growth  of  compulsory  membership  in  them,  and 
the  time  will  doubtless  come  when  this  compulsion  will  be  as  general  and 
will  be  considered  as  little  of  a  grievance  as  the  compulsory  attendance  of 
children  at  school.  The  inalienable  right  of  a  man  to  work  will  then  be 
put  upon  a  par  with  the  inalienable  right  of  a  child  to  play  truant,  and  the 
compulsion  exercised  by  the  trade  union  will  l>c  likened  to  that  of  a  state, 
which  in  the  interest  of  society  forces  an  education  upon  the  child,  even 
though  the  child  and  its  parents  are  utterly  and  irreconcilably  opposed  to  it. 

In  stating  that  the  unionists  have  a  legal  and  a  moral  right  to  refuse 
to  work  with  non-unionists,  I  desire  to  make  two  qualifications.  I  f  a  union 
is  working  not  for  the  interests  of  all  the  men  at  the  trade,  but  of  the  mem- 
bers who  at  that  time  are  actually  in  the  union,  if  it  is  unduly  restrictive, 
prohibiting  apprentices,  charging  extortionate  initiation  fees,  and  excluding 
capable  applicants  for  membership,  then  its  refusal  to  work  with  non-union 
men  is  monoj)olistic,  and  such  a  union  should  not  IK-  put  upon  a  par  with 
unions  that  refuse  to  work  with  non-unionists  in  the  general  interests  of 
the  trade.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  a  high  initiation  fee  is  always  unfair. 
To  a  certain  limited  extent,  it  may  be-  fair  to  capitali/.e  tin-  pa-t  sacrifices 
of  memlxjrs  of  the  union  and  it  may  be  necessary  by  reasonably  high  initia- 
tion fees  to  moderate  a  too  rapid  or  too  sudden  iu>h  into  the  trade.  Ks- 


284  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

pecially  where  membership  in  a  union  means  participation  in  a  large  ac- 
cumulated surplus,  it  may  be  fair  to  charge  an  initiation  fee  somewhat 
higher  than  usual.  One  must  look  at  the  motive  behind  the  regulation. 
But  if  the  union  is  monopolistic,  its  refusal  to  work  with  non-union  men  is 
an  aggravation  of  its  offense,  and  an  unduly  high  initiation  fee  may  mean 
a  tax  levied  upon  capable  men,  willing  to  work  according  to  union  rules 
and  regulations. 

The  second  qualification  is  based  upon  policy  rather  than  principle. 
While  unionists  have  a  perfect  legal  and  moral  right  to  refuse  to  work 
with  non-unionists,  it  is  not  always  politic  to  exercise  this  right,  and  the  de- 
mand upon  the  employer  for  the  complete  unionizing  of  his  plant  is  not 
always  presented  in  a  wise  or  politic  manner.  Many  employers  who  are 
willing  to  have  their  shops  unionized  are  not  willing  to  appear  to  be  forced 
into  such  a  position,  and  many  workmen  can  be  persuaded  who  cannot  be 
compelled  to  become  unionists.  No  demand  should  be  made  for  the  union- 
ization of  a  shop  until  all  reasonable  efforts  have  been  made  to  secure  the 
allegiance  of  every  employee.  It  is  unwise,  moreover,  to  demand  the  union- 
izing of  a  shop  or  an  industry  where  there  is  not  sufficient  strength  to  com- 
pel it.  For  every  such  demand  and  prior  to  every  such  demand  there  should 
be  months  of  patient  propaganda,  and  in  this,  as  in  every  other,  line  of  trade 
policy,  compulsion  should  not  be  used  until  persuasion  has  completely  and 
signally  failed. 

There  is,  it  must  be  admitted,  a  certain  danger  apart  from  antagonism 
of  employers  in  compulsory  unionizing  of  shops.  A  man  convinced  against 
his  will  is  of  the  same  opinion  still,  and  the  union  button  does  not  make  a 
unionist  at  heart.  An  enemy  is  sometimes  more  formidable  within  the 
lines  than  on  the  outside.  Half  a  dozen  obstructionists  may  defeat  the  pur- 
pose of  an  orderly  meeting,  while  the  presence  of  a  few  anti-unionists 
at  trade  union  meetings  may  enable  employers  to  inform  themselves  of  the 
plans  and  projects  of  the  organization,  and  may  thus  cripple  the  union  more 
effectively  than  if  the  avowed  friends  were  open  enemies. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  285 

In  conclusion,  I  believe  that  trade  unions  have  a  perfect  legal  and  moral 
right  to  exclude  non-unionists,  but  that  this  right  should  be  exercised  with 
the  utmost  care  and  only  after  persuasion  has  been  tried  and  has  failed. 
I  also  believe  that  with  the  growth  of  trade  unionism  in  the  United  States 
the  exclusion  of  non-unionists  will  become  more  complete,  although  ani- 
mosity toward  the  non-unionists  will  diminish  with  the  lessening  of  his 
power  to  do  evil. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII 
THE  LABEL  AND  THE  BOYCOTT 

The  Attack  upon  the  Boycott.  The  Boycott  and  the  Right  of  Free  Speech.  Boy- 
cott an  Expression  of  Popular  Feeling.  Legality.  Occasional  Injustice.  Difficulty 
of  Drawing  a  Line.  Secondary  or  Indirect  Boycott.  The  Strike  the  Weapon  of  the 
Seller;  the  Boycott  the  Weapon  of  the  Buyer.  Boycotting,  Advertising,  and  Modern 
Business.  The  Label  the  Reverse  of  the  Boycott.  The  Union  Label  an  American 
Invention.  The  White,  Red,  and  Blue  Labels.  The  Union  Label  and  the  Sweated 
Trades.  Growth  of  the  Label.  Counterfeiting  the  Label.  Legal  Protection.  The 
Label  Organizes  Workmen  as  Consumers.  The  Future  Possibilities  of  the  Label. 

'""PHE  right  to  boycott,  like  the  right  to  strike  or  lock-out,  the  right  to 
vote,  the  right  to  bear  arms,  the  liberty  of  speech,  or  the  right  to  de- 
vise one's  property  as  one  will,  is  subject  to  misuse.  There  can  be  no  per- 
sonal liberty  that  does  not,  at  some  time  or  other,  lead  to  abuse  and  cause 
individual  hardship.  There  is  no  justification,  however,  for  the  widespread 
sweeping  denunciation  of  the  boycott,  so  lightly  uttered. 

The  boycott  presents  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  in  labor  dis- 
putes. It  would  be  as  foolish  and  wrong  to  defend  all  the  various  mani- 
festations and  instances  of  boycotts  as  it  is  for  the  critics  of  trade  unions 
to  attack  them  in  a  body.  There  are  many  instances  of  boycotts  not  only 
defensible  but  wholly  praiseworthy,  and  there  are  other  cases  in  which  the 
boycott  may  be  unjustifiable,  mean,  and  cowardly. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  boycott  is  a  weapon  merely  of  trade 
unionists,  or  even  of  working  people.  Every  class  in  society  and  every 
society  itself  constantly  makes  use  of  this  device.  Speaking  generally,  the 
boycott  is  nothing  more  than  an  expression  of  moral  disapproval,  a  method 
of  social  ostracism.  A  boycott,  like  a  strike,  is  a  means  of  compulsion,  but 
it  is  not  necessarily  an  unjustifiable  means.  Whenever  a  group  in  society, 
be  it  a  church  or  a  trade  union,  a  temperance  parly,  or  a  consumers'  league, 

(286) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  287 

believes  that  it  is  necessary  to  discriminate  against  persons  committing  cer- 
tain actions,  a  boycott  exists.  In  political,  industrial,  and  social  life  men 
are  being  constantly  boycotted,  because  of  their  failure  or  refusal  to  attain 
to  certain  ideals. 

Perhaps  the  most  effective  use  of  the  boycott  has  been  made  by  em- 
ployers. Manufacturers  have  been  boycotted  by  other  manufacturers  and 
by  jobbers  and  by  retailers,  and  these  latter  have  been  boycotted  by  manu- 
facturers or  associations  of  manufacturers.  Individual  firms  have  been 
boycotted  by  banks,  and  banks  have  been  boycotted  by  the  general  business 
community.  Railroads  have  been  boycotted  and,  in  turn,  have  lx>ycotled, 
as  they  have  specially  favored,  particular  shippers  in  violation  of  the  law. 
In  the  business  world  men  of  all  classes  and  all  occupations  are  boycotted 
for  all  reasons.  A  manufacturer  may  l>e  boycotted  by  other  manufacturers, 
simply  because  of  his  having  made  reasonable  terms  with  labor.  When 
in  one  of  the  early  anthracite  strikes  a  numl>er  of  operators  desired  to  sub- 
mit to  the  demands  of  the  striking  miners,  they  were  prevented  from  so 
doing  by  the  railroads  exorbitantly  raising  their  freight  rates,  and  thus  shut- 
ting out  of  the  market  the  coal  mined  under  union  conditions.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  during  the  last  anthracite  strike,  one  of  the  so-called  "in- 
dependent" operators  personally  told  me  that  he  would  readily  grant  the 
demands  of  the  union  but  for  the  fact  that  by  doing  so  he  would  IK*  dis- 
criminated against  by  the  railroad  companies,  and  consequently  forced  into 

bankruptcy. 

The  boycott  of  the  union  may  l>e  levied  against  a  j>erson  <»r  a  thing. 
An  anti-union  employer  or  a  non-union  workman  may  be  I  my  cot  ted  either 
in  business  or  socially;  a  product  may  l>c  boycotted  cither  by  a  retinal  l<> 
buy  it  or  a  refusal  to  work  on  it  or  with  it. 

The  legal  right  of  workingmen  to  boycott  should  not  IK*  called  into 
f|iicstion.  \\orkingmcn  in  Ixn'cotting  one  <il  their  fellow-craftsmen 
are  simply  doing  together  what  they  have  a  jK*rfcct  right  t<>  do  separately. 
A  man  has  a  legal  right  to  refuse  to  deal  at  a  certain  establishment,  to  give 
or  withhold  patronage,  to  buy  where  he  sees  lit;  and  what  one  may  do  a 


288  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

hundred  or  a  thousand  should  have  the  right  to  do.  No  one  can  compel 
John  Smith  to  buy  goods  from  John  Brown,  and  no  one  can  compel  him 
to  enter  the  same  car,  to  sit  in  the  same  church,  or  to  eat  at  the  same  table. 

The  working-men  should  not  only  have  the  right  to  boycott  a  person 
or  a  thing,  but  they  should  also  have  the  right  to  present  to  the  public  in  a 
fair  and  temperate  manner  a  statement  of  their  position,  in  order  that  the 
public  may  have  the  opportunity  of  judging  and,  in  its  discretion,  of  aiding 
or  refusing  to  aid  in  the  boycott.  There  are  many  cases  of  boycotts  by  or- 
ganized workmen,  in  which  other  rights  are  involved  than  those  of  the 
laboring  classes  themselves.  The  occasional  tyranny  of  unscrupulous  em- 
ployers over  shop  girls,  amounting  in  many  cases  to  a  violation  of  the  most 
fundamental  laws  of  morals  and  decency,  should  be  restrained  by  a  boycott 
where  legal  redress  is  not  possible.  In  many  trades  in  which  women,  suf- 
fering under  the  double  burden  of  their  sex  and  their  dependent  position, 
or  immigrants,  pliant,  ignorant,  and  unresisting,  are  exploited  in  the  foulest 
dens  of  a  foul  tenement,  the  unions  should  have  the  right  to  appeal  to  the 
public  by  the  boycott  or  the  label  to  secure  protection  to  these  undefended 
creatures.  The  boycott  should  not  be  issued  secretly,  and  the  person  or  the 
owner  of  the  thing  boycotted  should  have  the  right  to  be  heard  before  a  boy- 
cott is  imposed.  The  same  rules  that  apply  to  a  strike  should  apply  to  a  boy- 
cott ;  it  should  be  enforced  only  when  a  real  necessity  exists  and  under  con- 
ditions which  will  promote  the  welfare  of  the  working  classes  and  of  society 
in  general.  The  morality  as  well  as  the  efficiency  of  a  boycott  can  be  se- 
cured only  by  limiting  its  application  to  important  cases  and  by  preventing 
its  abuse. 

There  is  a  great  danger  in  the  tendency  of  certain  courts  to  adopt  an 
attitude  antagonistic  to  the  boycott.  If  an  attempt  is  made  to  render  the 
boycott  illegal,  as  has  already  been  done,  the  result  will  merely  be  that  the 
boycott  or  the  concerted  refusal  to  purchase  goods  at  a  certain  place  will 
become  secret  instead  of  open.  The  only  safeguard  against  the  occasional 
abuses  of  the  boycott  is  openness  and  publicity;  and  if  the  law  forces  the 
boycott  to  become  irregular  and  secret,  it  will  undoubtedly  be  used  to  serve 


(     MM  UN-'    •>!       KlH' 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  3*9 

the  purposes  of  malice  or  spite,  and  unscrupulous  employers  or  manufac- 
turers will  endeavor  to  use  secretly  this  formidable  weapon  against  their 
rivals  and  competitors.  The  endeavor  should  be  to  mitigate  any  possible 
evils  without  striking  at  the  roots  of  a  privilege  of  great  importance  and 
value  to  society. 

It  is  to  be  deplored  that  the  boycott  occasionally  is  used  tyrannously 
and  unfairly  and  not  infrequently  is  carried  too  far.  It  is  very  hard  to 
<!raw  the  line  as  to  just  what  length  a  people  with  a  real  grievance  may  go, 
but  the  rule  should  be  adhered  to  always  that  the  sins  of  the  fathers  should 
not  be  visited  upon  the  children  and  that  the  innocent  should  not  suffer  for 
the  sake  of  the  guilty.  Even  this  rule  of  simple  justice  is  difficult  to  carry 
out,  because  in  many  cases  the  man  who  has  struck  at  the  welfare  of  his 
class  or  his  town  or  society  may  attempt  to  recover  his  position  under  cloak 
of  a  relative,  a  friend,  or  an  associate.  Generally  speaking,  however,  the 
same  rule  of  justice  which  prevails  in  ordinary  life  should  be  applied  to  the 
boycott,  and  it  is  better  here,  as  elsewhere,  that  ten  guilty  men  escape  than 
that  one  innocent  man  suffer.  It  is  also  true  that  trade  unions,  like  other 
organizations,  occasionally  carry  the  boycott  too  far  and  much  beyond 
the  point  where  it  is  of  value  or  of  effect  upon  the  original  culprit. 
To  boycott  a  street  railway  which  overworks  its  employees  and  pays 
starvation  wages  is  one  thing;  to  boycott  merchants  who  ride  in  the 
cars  of  the  company  is  another  thing,  and  to  boycott  people  who  patronize 
the  stores  of  the  merchants  who  ride  in  boycotted  cars  is  still  another  and 
a  very  different  thing.  As  a  general  rule,  the  further  the  boycott  is  re- 
moved from  the  original  offender  the  less  effective  it  lx.T<>mes.  It  should 
l>e  the  aim  of  the  union  to  seek,  and  not  to  force  the  alliance  of  the  public, 
and  to  render  the  boycott  as  direct  and  personal  as  possible.  There  are  many 
cases,  however,  where  a  secondary  Ixjycott  is  absolutely  necessary.  When 
a  union  is  engaged  in  a  contest  with  a  newspaper,  especially,  as  is  usually  the 
case,  with  a  newspaper  ndt  largely  read  by  the  working  classes,  a  secondary 
boycott  is  far  more  effective  than  a  direct  boycott.  A  ncwspu,  r  can  better 
do  without  a  few  hundred  two-cent  subscribers  than  \\ith»ut  a  lew  thousand- 


290  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

dollar  advertisements,  and  a  man  who  continues  to  pay  large  sums  in  ad- 
vertising to  a  newspaper  that  is  maltreating  its  employees  may  not  unfairly 
be  considered  the  ally  of  the  journal,  and  as  aiding  and  abetting  it  in  its  con- 
test with  labor.  Especial  care,  however,  should  be  used  in  the  laying  of  a 
secondary  boycott.  A  boycott  of  this  sort,  that  is  extended  and  extended 
from  a  central  point  like  the  waves  made  by  a  pebble  thrown  into  a  still  pond, 
becomes  of  so  little  force  and  arouses  so  much  just  antagonism  that  dis- 
credit is  thrown  upon  the  original  boycott,  which  in  itself  may  have  been  per- 
fectly just  and  reasonable. 

There  are  other  manifestations  of  the  boycott,  moreover,  which 
are  unduly  intolerant.  I  do  not  believe  that  union  men  have  a  moral 
right  to  leave  a  church  in  a  body  when  a  non-unionist  or  a  "scab" 
enters,  since  the  struggles  of  the  everyday  world  should  not  be  carried 
into  this  place,  and  no  one  should  leave  a  church  because  it  is  shared 
by  a  "scab,"  a  thief,  or  even  a  murderer.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  right 
to  secure  or  attempt  to  secure  the  dismissal  of  a  school  teacher  because  her 
father  worked  during  a  strike,  or  to  urge  or  to  allow  children  to  boycott  in 
school  the  children  of  a  non-union  or  "scab"  workingman.  Last  of  all,  I 
believe  it  would  be  utterly  immoral  and  unjustifiable  to  refuse  the  last  serv- 
ices to  a  dying  man,  whatever  his  past  record  may  have  been,  or  in  any  way 
to  disturb  or  even  hold  aloof  from  the  burial  of  such  a  man.  A  boycott 
itself,  when  used  with  temperance  and  justice,  however  severe  its  applica- 
tion, may  be  an  admirable  and  entirely  justifiable  weapon  against  offenders; 
but  the  right  to  boycott  can  only  be  maintained  by  the  community  itself  re- 
fusing to  indulge  in  any  merely  savage  or  brutal  manifestations  of  hostility. 

While  opposition  to  the  boycott  has  always  been  strenuously  urged  by 
employers,  the  black  list  has  at  the  same  time  been  one  of  their  common  and 
successful  expedients.  As  early  as  1832  the  merchants  and  ship  owners  of 
Boston  held  a  meeting  in  order  to  discountenance  and  check  the  unlawful 
combinations  of  workmen,  which  were,  it  was  claimed,  driving  trade  from 
the  city;  and  in  this  meeting,  the  merchants  piiblicly  resolved,  "that  we  will 
neither  employ  any  journeymen  who  at  the  time  belong  to  such  combina- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 


291 


tions,  nor  will  we  give  work  to  any  master  mechanic  who  shall  employ  them 
while  they  continue  thus  pledged  to  each  other  and  refuse  to  work  the  hours 
which  it  has  been,  and  it  is  now  customary,  for  mechanics  to  work."  Since 
that  time,  the  blacklist  has  been  frequently  used,  either  openly  or  secretly, 
l>oth  in  England  and  in  this  country. 

The  cruelty  of  the  boycott  even  in  its  worst  phases  is  as  nothing  com- 
pared with  the  cruelty  of  the  black  list.  Labor  leaders  and  men  interested 
in  the  labor  movement  have  always  been  a  shining  mark  for  the  blacklist, 
and  many  who  have  been  willing  to  make  sacrifices  for  the  movement  have 
l>een  accorded  that  privilege  by  blacklist-using  employers.  Many  a  man  has 
been  hounded  from  position  to  position,  driven  as  by  the  invisible  wind  from 
one  part  of  the  country  to  another,  ceaselessly  wandering,  ceaselessly  asking 
for  j>ositions,  doomed  inevitably  after  the  shortest  term  of  service  to  l>c  dis- 
missed upon  some  trumped  up  charge.  There  is  nothing  so  terrible  as  this 
weapon  of  associated  employers.  According  to  the  law  a  blacklist  must  l>e 
a  conspiracy  of  a  number  of  employers,  but  the  injury  is  just  as  great  in  the 
case  where  a  single  company  with  its  myriad  plants  monopolizes  all  oppor- 
tunities of  employment  in  the  industry.  Many  a  man  has  l>cen  driven  to 
change  his  name  and  even  to  alter  his  appearance  in  the  vain  hope  of  escajxi 
from  the  omnipresent  and  omnipotent  blacklist. 

The  boycott  is,  as  a  rule,  a  thing  which  is  more  or  less  open,  because  to 
secure  action  among  a  great  body  of  employees  a  certain  amount  of  pub- 
licity is  necessary.  The  blacklist,  however,  is  generally  covert  and  secret. 
In  former  times  and  jxjssibly  still  to-day,  employers  frequently  \\rote  letters 
of  recommendation  to  employees,  discharged  ujxm  sonic  trivial  pretext  or 
other,  but  by  a  secret  sign,  the  employer  who  rtiid  the  testimonial  would 
know  that  the  workman  was  blacklisted.  In  many  eases,  in  fact,  the  black- 
list has  l>ecn  negative  and  has  l>ecn  simply  a  secret  arrangement  by  em- 
ployers not  to  engage  any  workman  without  a  s|>cvilic  recommendation 
from  another  employer. 

In  a  certain  sense  the  lal>cl  and  the  !>«>ycolt  are  different  p!<  i^cs-  <>f  the 
same  thing,  two  sides  of  the  same  shield.  The  1>o vo'it  points  ,,i<i  t]n»e  uith 


2Q2  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

whom  one  should  not  deal,  the  label,  those  with  whom  one  should  deal  ex- 
clusively. When  a  man,  whether  he  be  a  workman  or  any  other  consumer, 
insists  upon  a  label,  he  is  boycotting  every  article  which  does  not  bear  that 
label. 

All  useful  members  of  society  are  both  producers  and  consumers  of 
wealth.  Whether  a  man  is  engaged  at  manual  or  mental  work,  whether  he 
works  with  a  pick  or  an  axe,  a  plow  or  a  pestle,  a  pen  or  a  hoe,  he  is  con- 
tributing either  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  the 
country  and  may  be  considered  as  a  producer.  All  this  production,  or,  at 
least,  the  greater  part  of  it,  is  intended  for  the  purpose  of  consumption,  since 
articles  are  made  to  be  enjoyed,  either  by  the  man  who  makes  them  or  by 
others. 

In  the  early  days,  when  the  structure  of  society  was  simple,  each  family 
consumed  the  articles  which  it  produced.  The  family  raised  its  own  food 
and  made  its  own  clothes  from  the  fleece  of  its  own  sheep,  and  there  was 
little  assistance  given  by  one  to  another  and  but  little  purchase  or  sale. 
To-day,  however,  society  is  organized  on  the  basis  of  a  minute  and  compli- 
cated division  of  labor  and  an  extended  change  and  interchange  of  com- 
modities. A  man  no  longer  consumes  more  than  the  smallest  fraction  of 
the  articles  he  produces,  and  perhaps  he  consumes  none  at  all.  The  cigar 
maker  may  be  a  non-smoker,  and  the  piano-mover  certainly  does  not  receive 
his  wages  in  the  form  of  grand  pianos.  Through  the  agency  of  money  all 
producers  are  enabled  to  get  the  articles  they  wish  to  consume  at  the  time 
and  in  the  manner  desired,  and  we  thus  have  in  modern  society  the  example 
of  all  producing  for  all  instead  of  each  producing  for  himself. 

The  workingmen,  as  other  members  of  society,  are  both  producers  and 
consumers.  They  are  interested  as  producers  in  obtaining  as  high  wages 
and  as  favorable  conditions  of  life  as  possible;  as  consumers  in  being  charged 
reasonable  prices.  When  labor  is  organized,  the  workingman  may  be  made 
to  suffer  as  a  consumer,  through  truck  stores,  forced  credit,  and  other 
schemes,  as  well  as  through  his  being  led  without  his  knowledge  to  buy 
sweat-shop  and  other  deleterious  products.  It  is  chiefly,  however,  as  a  pro- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  293 

ducer  that  he  suffers,  and  it  is  chiefly  this  phase  of  the  workman's  life  in 
which  trade  unionism  seeks  to  protect  him. 

Therefore,  until  recently,  labor  has  been  organized  almost  exclusively 
on  the  basis  of  the  production  of  wealth.  It  was  felt  that  the  workingman 
as  a  consumer,  if  assisted  by  laws  against  truck  stores,  could  amply  protect 
himself.  Where  competition  prevails,  where  monopoly  has  not  yet  obtained 
a  foothold  the  consumer  has  a  great  advantage  in  modern  society,  and  can, 
by  granting  or  withholding  credit,  obtain  such  reasonable  conditions  as  lie 
flesires. 

It  was  due  to  the  ingenuity  of  American  trade  unionists,  however,  and 
especially  to  that  of  the  Cigar  Makers  that  the  power  of  the  workingman  as 
a  consumer  was  enlisted  in  support  of  his  demands  as  a  producer,  'i  his 
was  rendered  possible  in  America,  owing  to  the  fact  that  largely  through  the 
agency  of  trade  unionism  wages  had  risen  to  a  high  point  hero,  and  a  great 
part  of  the  consumption  of  wealth  in  this  country  was  on  tiic  part  of  the 
workingman.  It  was  seen  that  workingmen  purchased  many  articles  and 
that  their  patronage  was  eagerly  sought,  and  the  exj>edicnt  was  therefore 
adopted  and  urged  upon  workingmen  of  not  buying  good-;  unless  they  were 
made  under  union  conditions. 

It  is  to  this  desire,  to  enlist  the  workingman  as  a  consumer  in  support 
of  his  demands  as  a  producer,  that  we  owe  the  union  label.  Another  lad. 
however,  contributed  to  the  same  result.  There  is  always  a  large  section 
in  the  community  more  or  less  closely  allied  in  thought,  feelings,  and  habits 
of  life  with  trade  unionists,  who  are  in  sympathy  with  the  general  ideas  of 
ialxjr  organizations,  and  many  of  the  members  of  this  ela>s  are  uilling  to 
aid  the  unions  as  consumers,  even  if  they  cannot  or  \\ill  not  do  it  a>  pro- 
ducers. The  union  lal>el  appeals  to  a  still  larger  class  and  to  an  even  more 
potent  and  more  universal  motive.  When  there  is  no  eheck  upon  an  un- 
scrupulous employer  or  a  hard-driven  contractor,  it  i>  not  imjMtssililc1  thai 
work  will  be  done  under  the  filthiest  and  most  uiisanitar\  conditions  and 
in  circumstances  which  are  a  menace  t«>  the  health  .md  e\en  the  lite  <>t 
tlio  consumer.  The  union  label,  bv  guaranteeing  that  tiic  \\oil  \\.is  done 


'Si 

ORGANIZED    LABOR 

under  healthful  conditions,  relieves  the  consumer  of  the  fear  of  disease  or 
death  from  the  purchased  articles  and  is  in  a  sense  an  insurance  against 
noxious  germs. 

The  union  label  originated  in  the  United  States  among  the  Cigar 
Makers  in  the  year  1874.  It  practically  arose  in  the  contest  against  the 
Chinese,  who  after  the  treaty  with  China  in  1868  began  to  flood  the  country, 
especially  the  Western  States.  The  workingmen  of  Australia  had  already 
been  forced  to  exclude  the  Chinese  on  account  of  the  imminent  danger  to 
the  white  population;  but  despite  the  agitation  in  California,  no  measure  ap- 
peared to  be  immediately  possible  in  the  United  States,  and  it  was  not  until 
the  year  1882  that  the  immigration  of  Chinese  was  prohibited  in  this 
country.  In  1868  over  11,000  Chinese  entered  on  the  Pacific  coast,  and  by 
1872  a  number  of  cigar  manufacturers  had  already  begun  to  employ  Chinese 
workers.  The  number  of  Chinese  so  engaged  was  not  large,  but,  owing  to 
their  willingness  to  work  at  starvation  wages,  the  danger  to  the  trade  was 
felt  to  be  very  great.  In  1874,  therefore,  the  California  Cigar  Makers 
placed  a  white  label  upon  the  cigar  box  in  order  to  indicate  that  the  white 
workers  were  attempting  to  defend  their  standard  of  life  against  the  lower 
standard  of  the  Chinese  coolies. 

The  use  of  the  label  was  soon  extended  from  a  fight  against 
Chinese  labor  to  a  fight  against  unorganized  labor  generally.  In  1875 
a  red  label  was  adopted  by  the  St.  Louis  Cigar  Makers  in  their  con- 
flict with  non-union  labor  in  that  city,  and  the  label  received  so  much 
support  that  attempts  were  made  to  counterfeit  it.  The  present  blue 
label  of  the  Cigar  Makers  was  not  adopted  until  1880,  when  in  the 
national  convention  at  Chicago  a  dispute  arose  between  the  St.  Louis 
and  the  California  delegates  as  to  whether  the  red  or  the  white  label 
should  be  adopted.  The  question  was  finally  decided  by  an  eastern  delegate 
who  said,  ''Let  us  take  the  other  color  of  the  flag,"  and  from  that  time  on 
the  blue  label  has  been  the  symbol  of  union  cigars  throughout  the  country. 

The  importance  of  the  union  label  to  the  trade  union  movement  can  best 
be  seen  in  the  gradual  extension  of  the  use  of  the  label  by  the  Cigar  Makers 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  295 

and  other  trades.  The  number  of  labels  put  upon  cigar  boxes  increased 
from  1.590,000  in  1880,  to  22,315,000  in  1900.  \Yithout  this  label  it  is 
doubtful  whether  the  Cigar  Makers  could  ever  have  attained  the  strength 
which  they  have  secured.  The  trade  has  always  been  threatened  by  floods 
of  unskilled  immigrants  working  under  the  most  unsanitary  conditions  in 
tenements  and  cellars,  and  women  and  children  have  been  introduced  by 
thousands  to  depress  wages  and  to  lower  conditions  of  life. 

The  success  of  the  label  of  the  Cigar  Makers  soon  led  to  the  adoption 
of  a  similar  label  by  other  organizations.  In  1885  the  present  label  of  the 
Hatters  was  introduced.  This  label,  attached  to  the  sweat  band  or  linings 
of  felt  and  stiff  hats,  soon  became  popular.  By  means  of  the  label  many 
formerly  non-union  establishments  were  brought  under  union  control,  and 
the  number  of  labels  rapidly  increased.  Up  to  November  30.  1897,  over 
115,000,000  labels  had  been  issued,  and  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  10,01 
the  union  was  issuing  a  million  new  lal>els  a  month.  The  label  was  also 
adopted  by  the  Garment  Workers  and  has  been  of  great  service  in  the  strug- 
gle of  that  organization  against  the  domination  of  sweat-shop  methods. 

One  of  the  most  successful  labels  has  been  that  of  the  Printers,  which 
was  adopted  in  1891,  and  which  is  now  general  throughout  the  I'nited 
States.  Several  cities  have  passed  ordinances  requiring  the  use  of  this 
label  upon  all  public  printing,  thus  endorsing  the  principle  of  trade  union 
conditions  for  municipal  work.  Since  1891  the  lal>el  has  been  adopted  by 
a  number  of  other  trade  unions,  and  the  spread  of  this  means  of  defense  for 
unionism  has  been  rapid  and  complete.  At  the  present  time  a  number  of 
trade  unions  arc  expending  large  sums  to  advertise  their  laU-K  and  several 
journals  exist  which  are  devoted  to  this  purjx>se  exclusively.  In  many 
states  Isabel  Leagues,  composed  of  lx>th  men  and  women.  ha\e  been  formed. 
with  the  object  of  promoting  the  sale  of  goods  made  under  favorable  sain 
tary  conditions  and  bearing  the  union  label. 

From  the  beginning  employers  have  been  found  who  were  willing  t  > 
counterfeit  and  imitate  union  labels.  This  was  all  the  easier,  since  it  u.t> 
at  iirst  held  hv  the  courts  that  the  l.iUI  of  a  Hade  nnu-n  omld  not  l>e  pro- 


296  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

tected  by  an  injunction  or  by  a  suit  for  damages.  The  courts  took  away 
from  the  union  label  the  protection  accorded  under  the  patent  and  copy- 
right laws  of  the  United  States,  and  ruled  that  the  workmen  who  used  the 
label  were  merely  laborers  who  had  no  property  rights  in  the  results  of  their 
labor,  suffered  no  financial  injury  from  the  counterfeiting,  and  should  have, 
therefore,  no  redress.  This  adverse  decision  was  rendered  in  the  Minne- 
sota case  of  the  Cigar  Makers  i's.  Conhaim,  and  was  re-affirmed  in  several 
other  cases.  In  order  to  overcome  this  difficulty  the  union  secured  in  the 
principal  states  the  passage  of  laws  permitting  labor  organizations  to  adopt 
union  labels,  providing  for  the  registration  of  the  same,  and  imposing  pen- 
alties for  counterfeiting  them.  Laws  of  this  sort  were  passed  up  to  1895 
in  twenty-four  different  states,  in  most  of  which  the  remedy  by  injunction 
or  equity  was  expressly  given  to  the  workmen  against  any  infringement  or 
violation  of  their  label.  The  constitutionality  of  these  statutes  has  been  sus- 
tained by  the  courts  in  several  decisions,  and  the  Illinois  courts  have  even 
proclaimed  that  it  was  lawful  for  the  label  to  contain  a  statement  that  it  was 
used  in  the  interests  of  an  organization  "opposed  to  inferior,  rat-shop, 
coolie,  prison,  or  filthy  tenement-house  workmanship/'1  It  is  said  that  imi- 
tation is  the  sincerest  flattery,  and  the  infringement  of  the  label  is  a  tribute 
to  its  success,  and  to  the  just  and  reasonable  use  to  which  it  has  generally 
been  put. 

All  means  are  taken  to  prevent  as  far  as  possible  the  placing  of  the  label 
on  goods  by  anyone  but  a  member  of  the  union.  Usually  the  label  is  a 
printed  slip  of  paper,  which  is  attached  to  the  articles,  or,  as  in  the  case  of 
cigars,  to  the  box  or  the  package.  The  label  of  the  Boot  and  Shoe  Workers 
is  printed  on  the  sole  or  insole  of  the  shoe  with  a  steel  stamp.  The  label 
of  the  Hatters  is  attached  to  the  inside  of  the  hat,  and  the  labels  of  the 
Tailors -and  Garment  Workers  are  sewed  on  the  inside  of  each  garment. 
The  Horse  Shoers  print  their  label  with  a  steel  stamp  upon  the  hot  shoe,  and 
the  Brick  Makers  use  a  brass  roller  attached  to  the  brick  machine,  which 

1  Many  of  the  facts  concerning  the  use  of  the  label  were  obtained  from  an  article 
by  John  Graham  Brooks  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  Department   of  Labor. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  3^7 

stamps  the  label  on  the  brick  as  the  soft  clay  passes  under  it.  The  label 
of  the  Printers  is  too  well-known  to  need  description,  but  it.  as  well  as  all 
other  labels,  are  put  on  in  such  a  manner  as  to  prevent  fraud  and  unfairness. 
Loose  labels  are  never  sold ;  a  manufacturer  is  not  usually  allowed  to  put 
on  the  labels  himself;  an  accurate  account  is  kept  of  all  labels,  and  they  are 
numbered  consecutively  in  order  that  irregularities  may  be  detected. 

The  label  appeals  both  to  the  working  classes  and  to  general  consumers, 
and  it  claims  to  stand,  and  usually  does  stand,  for  sanitary  conditions,  good 
workmanship  and  standard  wages.  \Yhen  the  label  means  sanitary  con- 
ditions, it  has  been  esj)ecially  successful  with  the  general  consumer.  X<>  man 
desires  to  put  upon  his  Ixick  a  coat  or  shirt,  or  to  put  into  his  mouth  a  cigar, 
which  he  knows  to  have  been  made  in  the  midst  of  filth  and  disease,  and 
there  is  no  guarantee  against  such  conditions  so  effective  as  the  union  label. 
When  the  lal>el  stands  for  good  workmanship,  the  general  consumer  is  also 
interested.  As  a  general  rule,  the  unions  endeavor  to  maintain  a  certain 
standard  of  excellence  in  goods  bearing  the  label,  and  the  cigar  makers  re- 
fuse to  permit  the  lal>el  to  be  put  on  cigars  which  sell  for  less  than  twenty 
dollars  a  thousand. 

The  principal  hold,  however,  which  the  union  lalx.-!  has  is  the  sup|>or» 
of  the  working  classes  and  their  sympathizers.  With  each  passing  year  tin- 
importance  of  the  workingmen  as  consumers  of  the  nation's  products  will 
increase,  and  with  each  year  it  will  l>e  more  and  more  a  matter  <.f  interest 
to  the  employer  to  appeal  to  this  public.  Through  the  label  the  \\<>rkin^ 
men  of  the  country  arc  organi/ing  as  consumers  JIM  as  they  lu\e  already 
organized  as  producers.  The  advertising  of  the  label  in  the  labor  |>I]K.T-> 
and  other  journals,  in  the  street  cars  and  eKeuhcre.  t!u-  sending  <>i  kvturcrs 
to  small  towns,  and  the  distribution  of  a  vast  amount  "I  literature  upon  the 
subject,  show  that  the  workingmen  are  adopting  business  methods  in  in- 
creasing their  strength.  Like  other  features  of  the  trade  union  movement, 
the  label  protects  the  scrupulous  and  just  employer  from  the  unfair  cuinjx:- 
tition  of  the  man  with  less  compunction.  A  union  hat  cannot  1*  told  from 
a  non-union  hat  by  its  general  appranmcc  any  more  than  a  1ni-!u-l  of  Iowa 


2Q8  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

wheat  can  be  distinguished  from  a  bushel  of  Kansas  wheat  in  a  Chicago 
elevator,  and  the  label  serves  the  good  purpose  of  separating  the  sweat-shop 
made  goods  from  the  goods  made  under  fair  and  reasonable  conditions. 

If  the  label  secures  the  support  of  the  working  classes  and  continues  to 
be  issued  in  a  fair  and  honest  manner,  and  if  the  boycott  is  judiciously  and 
temperately  used,  the  offensive  and  defensive  power  of  the  workingman 
will  increase  enormously.  In  a  strike  the  workingmen  are  in  general  at  a 
disadvantage  as  compared  with  the  employer,  because  they  are  in  the  posi- 
tion of  sellers  whose  commodity,  labor,  will  spoil  on  their  hands,  unless  dis- 
posed of  immediately.  The  employer  is  at  the  same  disadvantage  in  the 
case  of  a  boycott,  since  he  now  becomes  a  seller  of  commodities  to  the  work- 
ing classes  and  finds  through  a  boycott  or  through  the  absence  of  a  label 
that  he  cannot  make  terms  and  has  his  products  on  his  hands.  Especially 
is  this  true  at  the  present  time  when  giant  companies  spending  millions  of 
dollars  on  advertising  have  become  especially  vulnerable  to  the  boycott  and 
especially  desirous  of  securing  the  label.  The  label  makes  the  consumer  for 
the  first  time  a  responsible  agent,  capable  of  passing  judgment  and  knowing 
good  from  evil.  It  coins  the  public  disapproval  of  an  act  and  becomes  to 
the  workman  as  a  consumer  \vhat  the  union  scale  is  to  him  as  a  producer — a 
standard  and  a  rallying  point.  If  the  time  should  come  when  there  are  mil- 
lions of  workingmen  acting  together  in  common  upon  a  boycott  approved 
of  by  all,  the  power  of  the  organized  workmen  of  the  country  will  be  infin- 
itely increased.  The  attainment  of  such  a  strategic  position  by  the  work- 
men is  a  matter,  however,  of  slow  growth  and  is  the  result  of  their  educa- 
tion to  the  full  comprehension  of  the  ideals  of  trade  organizations. 


CHAPTER    XXXIV 
LABOR  AND  CAPITAL  AT  WAR 

Normal  Condition  of  Industry  is  Peace.  Strikes  Exceptional.  Strikes  a  Method 
'-I  Bargaining.  Strikes  Involve  Freedom  of  Contract.  Why  Workmen  Strike. 
Petty  Grievances  and  the  Last  Straw.  Strikes  and  Prosperity.  Sympathetic  Strikes 
and  Sympathetic  Lockouts.  Does  the  Walking  Delegate  Cause  Strikes?  Labor 
Leaders  aivl  Labor  Conflicts.  The  Responsibility  of  the  Union  Ollicial. 

THE  normal  condition  of  industry  is  peace.  \Yhi1e  \vc  daily  read  of  the 
outbreak  of  strikes  or  the  declaration  of  lockouts,  the  average  work- 
ingman,  engaged  in  industries  in  which  strikes  occur,  loses  less  than  a  day 
a  year  in  this  manner.  A  strike  lasts  upon  the  average  aix>ut  twenty -three- 
days,  but  the  average  employer  peacefully  carries  on  his  business  for  thirty 
years  without  the  outbreak  of  a  strike.  The  average  lockout  lasts  ninety- 
seven  days,  but  of  a  thousand  establishments,  less  than  two  declare  a  lock- 
out in  the  course  of  any  given  year. 

The  prevalence  of  strikes  as  of  all  dramatic  occurrences  is  exaggerated, 
l-.very  murder  which  occurs  in  the  cityof  \ew  "N  ork  is  reported  in  thousands 
of  newspajx-rs.  and  yet  these  crimes  are  so  rare  compared  with  the  number 
of  inhabitants  that  the  average  citi/en  has  no  fear  <  .r  thought  <>t'  such  a 
calamity.  Tragic,  dramatic,  or  startling  events  are  so  impre^ed  \\\»>\\  the 
mind  that  we  fail  to  reali/e  that  they  are  highly  exceptional. 

A  strike  is  simply  a  method  of  bargaining.  It"  the  grocer-,  ot  a  city 
would  refuse  to  sell  their  sugar  for  less  than  seven  cents  a  jx»und  and  the 
consumers  would  refuse  to  pay  more  than  six.  exactly  the  same  thing  would 
occur  as  liapjicns  in  an  ordinary  strike.  A  strike  <!«es  not  necessarily  m- 
vulve  animosity,  hatred,  dissension,  recrimination.  <>r  any  i>  nn  <>t  bitter- 
ness; it  merely  represents  a  difkrcnee  between  \\hat  the  Inner  oi  lalx>r  is 
willing  to  offer,  and  what  the  -.,-ller  of  labor  js  \\iihng  to  ao-rpt.  1  ntil  the 


3CO  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

buyer  and  seller  of  an  ordinary  commodity  are  agreed  as  to  price  and  condi- 
tions, no  sale  can  be  effected.  Until  the  wages  and  conditions  of  work  are 
agreed  upon  and  acceded  to  both  by  employer  and  workman,  the  industry 
must  stop. 

Strikes  thus  result  from  a  failure  to  make  a  bargain  or  contract  by  men 
who  are  free  to  contract.  Strikes  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  therefore, 
cannot  exist  before  the  freedom  of  contract  is  accorded.  The  concerted 
quitting  of  work  by  the  Israelitish  builders  of  the  pyramids  because  of  a  re- 
fusal upon  the  part  of  their  taskmasters  to  provide  them  with  straw  for  the 
making  of  bricks  was  not  a  strike,  because  the  workingmen  were  slaves  and 
without  the  free  power  of  contract.  It  was  not  for  them  to  fix  conditions 
of  work,  and  their  position  was  determined,  not  by  contract,  but  by  compul- 
sion. The  insurrection  of  the  slaves  at  Rome  and  the  peasant  uprisings 
which  occurred  at  the  dawn  of  modern  times  in  Germany,  France,  and  Eng- 
land, were  not  in  any  true  sense  strikes,  because  the  conditions  oi  work 
against  which  these  men  rebelled  were  determined  for  them  and  not  by  them. 
Their  various  uprisings  were  met  by  the  armed  resistance  of  the  State,  since 
it  was  held  that  the  men  had  no  right  to  refuse  to  work  in  the  positions 
assigned  to  them.  The  present  conception  of  a  strike  or  lockout  is  that  of 
workmen  or  employers  exercising  their  undoubted  right  to  refuse  to  enter 
into  contracts  when  the  conditions  are  not  satisfactory  to  them. 

It  is  frequently  stated  that  trade  unions  desire  strikes  because,  it  is  al- 
leged, they  are  organized  for  this  purpose.  This,  however,  is  not  true. 
The  trade  union  is  organized  for  the  purpose  of  securing  better  conditions 
of  life  and  labor  for  its  members,  and  when  necessary,  a  strike  is  resorted 
to  as  a  means  to  that  end.  But  it  can  no  more  be  said  that  trade  unions  de- 
sire strikes  because  they  are  equipped  for  them,  than  that  the  United  States 
desires  war  because  it  has  an  army  and  navy.  It  is  true  that,  in  a  general 
way,  strikes  occur  most  frequently  in  those  countries  which  are  most  pro- 
gressive and  in  which  trade  unionism  is  strongest.  In  proportion  to  popu- 
lation, there  are  more  strikes  in  the  United  States  than  in  Great  Britain, 
and  more  in  Great  Britain  than  in  France,  and  more  in  France  than  in  Italy 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  301 

or  Austria,  and  this,  in  general,  is  the  order  of  these  nations  in  the  pros- 
perity of  their  working  classes.  The  same  conditions  which  cause  the  cre- 
ation of  trade  unions  are  equally  answerable  for  the  constant  demand  for 
improved  conditions  on  the  part  of  the  working  class  population,  which  de- 
mand frequently  voices  itself  in  strikes. 

While  strikes  are  occasionally  called  for  senseless  or  trivial  purposes, 
the  great  majority  result  from  a  justifiable  desire  on  the  part  of  working- 
men  to  better  their  conditions.  According  to  die  Rejwrt  of  the  I'nited 
States  Department  of  Lalx>r.  41.4^  of  the  strikes  during  the  i»eriod  from 
1881  to  IQOO  were  fought  for  higher  wages;  and  6.9^  for  the  maintenance 
01  present  wages.  In  other  words,  practically  one-half  of  all  strikes  in  the 
United  States  during  the  last  twenty  years  were  declared  either  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enforcing  increases  or  preventing  decreases  in  the  rate  of  wages. 
Of  the  remainder  of  the  strikes,  one-half  were  attempts  to  enforce  demands 
for  a  reduction  of  the  working  day.  These  demands  looked  to  the  regula- 
tion of  the  working  time  and  of  payment  for  overtime,  as  well  as  toward 
the  granting  of  a  Saturday  half  holiday.  Only  one  strike  out  of  sixteen 
was  fought  out  upon  the  question  of  the.  recognition  of  the  union,  <  >r  the 
demand  that  the  employer  live  up  to  union  rules,  and  only  one  Mrike  in  nine- 
teen was  declared  for  the  purjx>se  of  excluding  non-union  men.  members 
of  other  labor  organizations,  unjx>pular  foremen,  or  other  persons  objection 
able  to  the  union.  Only  ]'/  of  the  strikes  were  called  for  the  purj>ose  of  en- 
forcing the  reinstatement  or  retention  of  particular  union  employee-*,  \\hile 
less  than  one  in  a  hundred  were  fought  out  upon  the  <|ucstion  oi  apprentice- 
ship. Despite  the  oft-repeated  chini  that  trade  unions  obstruct  the  mtro 
duction  of  machinery,  only  one  out  of  every  seven  hundred  strikes  in  the 
United  States  during  the  last  twenty  years  \\.MS  c;ille<l  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  or  hindering  the  introduction  or  use  of  machinery,  or  other  un- 
proved appliances. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  sides  that  strikes  are  to  be  a\uuled  in  all  cases 
where  the  object  desired  can  IK.- obtained  by  peaceful  negotiation.  There  is 
nothing  immoral,  lx>wever.  in  the  workingman's  striking,  ju-t  as  there  is 


302  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

nothing  immoral  in  his  wanting  higher  wages.  People  with  no  interest  in 
a  lahor  conflict  and  inconvenienced  by  a  strike,  are  liable  to  display  an  im~ 
patient  irritation  at  workmen,  who  seem  to  l>e  striking  all  the  time  and  for 
no  sufficient  cause.  It  is  true  that  strikes  are  occasionally  called  for  light 
and  trivial  reasons,  but  the  cause  of  a  strike  may  be  far  deeper  and  far  more 
important  than  the  immediate  incidents  or  occasions  which  precipitate  the 
struggle.  People  frequently  claim  that  workmen  should  never  strike  when 
the  injury  to  be  avoided  or  the  gain  to  be  secured  is  less  than  the  cost  of  the 
strike,  but  if  men  were  not  willing,  at  least  occasionally,  to  make  great  sac- 
rifices to  prevent  even  small  losses,  unscrupulous  employers  would  take  ad- 
vantage of  their  unwillingness  to  strike.  The  principle  of  trade  unions,  as 
of  all  other  organizations,  should  be  "Millions  for  defense,  but  not  one  cent 
for  tribute."  Frequently  workmen  are  subjected  to  a  long  series  of  petty 
aggressions  by  employers,  who  believe  that  no  single  one  of  these  encroach- 
ments will  be  sufficient  to  provoke  the  men  to  strike.  It  is  the  last  straw 
that  breaks  the  camel's  back,  and  a  strike  attributed  to  an  apparently  insig- 
nificant incident  may  be  the  outburst  of  pent-up  feelings,  resulting  from 
months  or  years  of  repeated  aggressions.  The  man  who,  in  his  haste,  de- 
clares that  a  strike  is  ill-considered,  because  its  immediate  cause  is  slight, 
may  be  as  wrong  as  the  judge  who,  to  discourage  useless  litigation,  might 
decide  against  all  plaintiffs  in  small  cases,  and  would  thus  hold  back  the  poor 
from  the  fountain  of  justice. 

Trade  unions  are  also  frequently  accused  of  lack  of  wisdom  in  calling 
strikes  in  prosperous  times.  The  comic  papers  are  filled  with  cartoons  rep- 
resenting the  foolish  workman  upsetting,  by  strikes,  the  precious  jar  of  pros- 
perity. But  no  matter  when  he  strikes,  the  workman  is  called  foolish.  If 
times  are  bad  and  reduction  of  wages  is  threatened,  the  immutable  law  of 
supply  and  demand  is  quoted  against  him;  if  times  are  good,  he  is  destroy- 
ing prosperity;  if  times  are  normal,  he  is  advised  to  leave  well  enough 
alone.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  working-men  are  to  secure  any  advance  or 
even  to  retain  their  present  position,  they  are  obliged  to  strike  in  good  times. 
It  is  in  good  times  that  the  prices  of  the  necessaries  of  life  rise;  and  it  is  at 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  30* 

such  times  that  employers  nre  best  able  to  grant  fair  conditions  of  \vork. 
for.  if  in  good  times  the  workingmen  do  not  secure,  either  by  strikes  or 
negotiation,  a  share  of  the  prosperity  of  the  nation,  the  excessive  profits  of 
the  employer  will  be  capitalized,  and  the  day  for  securing  increased  wages 
and  better  conditions  of  work  will  be  indefinitely  postponed. 

While  opposition  to  strikes  as  such  is  diminishing,  there  is  still 
much  disapproval  of  sympathetic  conflicts,  in  which  men  strike,  not  to  letter 
their  own  conditions,  but  in  order  to  express  sympathy  and  grant  aid  to  men 
unconnected  with  them,  who  are  engaged  in  an  industrial  conflict.  The 
public  feels  in  a  general  way  that  sympathetic  strikes  arc  vicious  and  foolish 
and  that  they  should  be  put  down  on  all  occasions. 

To  a  certain  extent  and  to  a  certain  extent  only,  the  public  is  justified 
in  this  attitude.  Of  course  there  are  sympathetic  lockouts  as  well  as  sym- 
pathetic strikes,  though  less  is  heard  of  the  former.  The  op|x)sition  to  sym- 
pathetic strikes  arises  from  the  fact  that  in  actual  practice  they  sometimes 
involve  a  breach  of  contract  and  from  the  further  fact  that  the  sympathetic 
strike  is  usually  too  remote  and  has  too  little  bearing  u|»n  the  main  ]xiint 
at  issue.  "Where  a  sympathetic  strike  involves  a  violation  of  a  contract,  it 
should  under  no  circumstances  take  place,  and  this  is  true  also  of  a  strike 
which  is  not  sympathetic.  The  right  to  strike,  to  strike  sympathetically. 
or  to  l)oycott  can  never  exist  where  such  action  involves  a  violation  of  an 
agreement  with  employers. 

Another  objection  to  the  sympathetic  strike  is  the  fact  of  its  remoteness 
The  public  may  sympathize  with  oppressed  tailors  who  are  struggling  !«r 
better  conditions,  but  it  \\ill  not  sympathize  \\ith  waiters,  teamsters,  brick 
layers,  or  railroad  employers,  if  by  any  chance,  they  strike  sympathetically 
with  the  (iarmcnt  \Vorkcrs.  The  public  finds  in  the  original  «|uarrcl  no 
justification  for  the  intervention  of  the  new  unions,  and  it  tears  tliat  by 
means  of  sympathetic  strikes  a  conflict  original!}  limited  in  scope  may  be- 
come extended  so  as  needlessly  to  imolve  the  entire  labor  world. 

I'jHin  the  whole.,  therefore,  sympathetic  strikes  sh,.nld  n<H  be  encour- 
aged. The  caution  which  a  \\i>e  labor  leader  exercises  1  KM  ore  involving 


304  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

his  union  in  a  strike  should  be  multiplied  many  fold  in  the  case  of  an  in- 
tended sympathetic  strike.  There  are  times,  however,  when  sympathetic 
strikes  are  not  only  justifiable,  but  actually  noble.  A  wise  sympathetic 
strike  which  involves  no  violation  of  contract,  and  is  of  such  a  nature  as 
directly  and  powerfully  to  influence  the  result  of  the  original  conflict,  a 
strike  carried  out,  not  for  the  immediate  good  of  the  members  of  the  union, 
but  for  that  of  other  workmen,  emphasizes,  as  no  other  event  in  industrial 
life,  the  universal  brotherhood  and  solidarity  of  labor.  There  is  nothing 
inherently  and  necessarily  wrong  in  doing  for  others  \vhat  we  would  that 
they  should  do  for  us,  and  a  strike  is  not  made  immoral  by  the  fact  that  the 
strikers  permit  others  than  themselves  to  be  the  gainers  thereby.  It  some- 
times happens  that  the  weaker  organizations,  composed  of  oppressed  work- 
men (and  the  more  oppressed  they  are,  the  weaker  their  unions  are  apt  to 
be),  can  only  secure  reasonable  and  humane  conditions  by  and  through  the 
assistance  of  workingmen  in  other  unions.  In  certain  trades,  moreover, 
where  the  unions  whose  members  are  engaged  upon  the  same  work  are  not 
atTiliated,  it  may  be  necessary  to  involve  all  workers  in  a  strike  in  which  any 
one  union  is  engaged,  although,  in  such  cases,  it  is  better  to  secure  uniform- 
ity by  federation  and  by  agreements  binding  all  the  unions  equally.  Some 
unions,  in  order  to  preserve  their  right  to  strike  sympathetically — where 
such  action  is  deemed  essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  whole  community — 

J 

contract  especially  for  this  contingency  and  reserve  this  privilege  in  making 
their  agreements.  This  is  not  unlike  the  strike  clauses  in  contracts  which 
one  employer  makes  with  another  and  which  renders  the  contract  or  cer- 
tain of  its  conditions  void  in  case  one  of  the  parties  thereto  has  a  strike. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  upon  the  whole  and  in  the  long 
run,  the  policy  of  striking  in  sympathy  should  be  frowned  upon  and  dis- 
couraged. It  should  not  be  permitted  at  all  where  it  involves  a  violation 
of  a  contract  or  where  its  influence  will  not  be  direct,  powerful,  immediate, 
and  beneficent,  not  only  to  the  men  on  strike,  but  to  the  community.  Fi- 
nally, in  any  and  every  instance,  sympathetic  strikes  should  be  resorted  to 
only  in  the  most  extreme  cases  and  where  the  conditions  fully  and  clearly 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  305 

indicate  the  necessity  of  making  an  exception  to  a  settled  policy.  The 
number  of  sympathetic  strikes  appear  to  be  small  and  diminishing,  only  35* 
of  the  strikes  occurring  in  the  United  States  between  the  vears  1880  and 
1900  being  sympathetic  strikes. 

It  is  frequently  stated  that  the  strikes  in  which  unions  engage  are  in- 
cited and  brought  on  by  the  officials.  There  are  many  people  who  believe 
that  labor  leaders  gain  \vhen  strikes  are  declared,  and  that  the  men  throw 
up  their  positions  in  order  in  some  mysterious  way  to  benefit  "the  labor  agi- 
tators." As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  shoe  is  entirely  upon  the  other  foot.  The 
\\ork  of  the  union  official  doubles  and  trebles  as  soon  as  a  strike  is  declared. 
and.  as  likely  as  not.  his  salary  is  lessened.  The  remuneration  of  the  union 
official  is  not  unlike  that  of  the  Chinese  physician,  who.  it  is  said,  receives 
pay  only  while  his  patient  is  well.  During  the  Coal  Strike  of  IO.GJ.  the 
officials  of  the  t'nited  Mine  Workers  contributed  35%-'  of  their  monthly  sal- 
aries to  the  strike  fund,  and  officers  of  the  union  who  had  been  slowly  sav- 
ing money  on  a  salary  of  $70  or  $75  a  month,  ran  into  debt  \\hile  working 
for  the  union  from  twelve  to  fifteen  and  more  hours  per  day.  I  nless, 
therefore,  the  union  official  stands  for  the  principle  of  more  work  and  Ics- 
pay,  he  will  not  call  strikes  for  his  own  selfish  purjjoses.  and  what  is  more 
important,  he  cannot,  if  he  will.  The  statement  that  strikes  are  can>e<l  by 
walking  delegates  is  as  naive  as  the  childish  lx:licf  that  it  is  the  gong  winch 
makes  the  train  move.  Strikes,  it  is  true,  have  sometimes  been  called  for 
organization  pur|x>ses.  for  propaganda,  but  no  strike  of  this  sort  could  lie. 
successful  unless  it  were  at  the  same  time  a  protest  against  intolerable  con 
ditions.  and  unless  it  were  generally  desired  and  demanded  by  the  men.  In 
nearly  all  unions,  the  officials,  from  the  local  btisine^  agent  or  walking 
delegate  to  the  international  president,  are  elements  for  peace,  not  for  \\ar. 
and  in  actual  practice  the  aggressive  element  i»  rcprcM-ntc  1  by  the  members 
of  the  union,  and  the  steadying  .nut  confer \alr.e  clement,  by  the  oituvrv 
The  pecuniary  loss  which  strikes  may  imlict  upon  a  union  otticial  i-  the  lea-l 
of  his  difficulties. 

I  ran  conceive  of   few  |x>^ition<-  ^>  unenviable.   -•  •  till**'!  v.i'h  tin*  tx-nl 


306  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

of  an  evil  choice  as  that  of  a  labor  leader  on  the  eve  of  a  great  industrial 
conflict.  Under  the  democratic  constitutions  of  our  unions,  the  decision 
to  strike  or  not  to  strike  rests  in  the  final  instance  with  the  men  themselves ; 
but  in  the  case  of  a  particularly  difficult  problem,  conditions  may  be  such 
that  the  decision  will  depend  upon  votes  cast  under  the  influence  of  a  single 
leader.  The  sobering  sense  of  responsibility  which  under  these  circum- 
stances comes  to  the  union  official,  is  radically  different  from  the  reckless 
spirit  in  which,  it  is  claimed,  the  leaders  of  labor  in  •  this  country  evoke 
strikes.  The  potentialities  of  suffering,  of  want  and  destitution,  the  dread 
of  a  coming  winter  of  idleness,  bear  with  almost  crushing  force  upon  the 
man  who  is  responsible.  Either  choice  is  fraught  with  the  possibility,  the 
absolute  assurance  even,  of  great  evil.  On  the  one  hand,  the  leader  feels 
the  growing  discontent,  the  increasing  recklessness,  the  sullen  irritation  of 
idle  men,  the  hatred  between  the  men  who  strike  and  the  men  who  work; 
he  fears  the  clash  between  the  more  reckless  on  both  sides ;  he  fears  blows 
and  violence,  perhaps  even  murder;  he  dreads  the  hardships,  the  suffering, 
the  privation,  the  anguish  of  men  whose  wives  and  children  are  famished 
and  freezing,  the  despair  that  comes  at  the  end  and  destroys  the  slow  patient 
work  of  long  years.  On  the  other  hand,  he  sees  unfolded  before  him,  the 
whole  history  of  labor;  the  upward  striving  through  effort  and  courage  and 
sacrifice ;  the  temporary  losses  through  cowardice  or  shrinking  from  the  fear 
of  evils,  a  movement  ever  upward  and  onward,  but  ever  beset  with  diffi- 
culties, with  danger,  with  suffering,  and,  it  may  be,  with  loss  of  life.  A 
leader  who  in  wanton  recklessness  and  without  thoughtful  calculation  of 
all  the  possible  good  and  evil,  a  leader  who  makes  his  decision  to  strike,  or 
not  to  strike,  from  any  but  the  highest,  the  noblest,  the  most  disinterested 
motives,  is  guilty  of  a  crime  against  labor  comparable  to  the  treachery  of  a 
Benedict  Arnold. 


CHAPTER  XXXV 
STRIKES  IN  THEIR  MORAL  AND  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS 

Strikes  from  an  Ideal  Standpoint.  Strikes  in  Practice.  Trade  Unions  Prevent 
Strikes.  The  Avoidance  of  Misunderstandings.  The  Initiative  in  Strikes  and  Lockouts. 
Do  Strikes  Pay?  The  Strike  Bill  of  the  Nation.  The  Loss  in  Time.  The  Shock  from 
Strikes.  Compensating  Advantages  of  Strikes.  A  Strike  Lost  may  be  a  Strike  Won. 
Strikes  have  Benefited  the  Workman  and  the  Employer.  The  Right  "Xot  to  Work." 
"Fools  do  not  Strike."  The  Moral  Gain  from  Strikes.  Unrecorded  Heroism. 

STRIKES  may  be  considered  from  the  standpoint  either  of  ideal  or 
actual  conditions.  Viewed  from  ideal  conditions,  a  strike  is  a  bar- 
barous method  of  settling  industrial  controversies.  It  is  a  struggle  of  en- 
durance, a  question  of  might,  not  right;  it  is  war  carried  into  the  industrial 
field,  and  like  all  war,  attended  by  cruelty  and  suffering;  it  is  a  feudal  con- 
flict, in  which  many  besides  the  immediate  contestants  are  grievously  in- 
jured. Thus,  from  an  ideal  point  of  view,  the  necessity  for  even  occasional 
strikes  constitutes  one  of  the  strongest  indictments  against  civilized  society. 
Doubtless,  if  in  some  way  or  other  an  all-wise,  all-good,  and  all-ix»\\cr- 
^ful  government  could,  without  injury  to  the  liberty  and  prosperity  of  indi- 
viduals, determine  the  rate  of  remuneration  and  the  lal>or  conditions  of  all 
workers,  either  by  some  ideal  form  of  Socialism  or  by  so  harmotiixing  tin- 
interests  of  all  classes  that  no  two  men  should  covet  tin-  same  thing— doubt- 
less, in  that  event,  strikes  would  come  to  l>e  unnecessary.  Kvcn  under  pres- 
ent conditions,  with  humanity  imj>erfect  as  it  is.  the  frequency  «»t  strikes 
may  1)C  largely  diminished  by  means  of  trade  unions. 

There  can  l>e  little  doubt  that  with  the  increasing  strength  and  groumg 
conservatism  of  labor  organizations  and  \\ith  the  growth  o|  a  lullcr  and 
l>ctter  understanding  l>ctwecn  lal*>r  and  capital,  industrial  conflicts  \\ill  ten-1 
to  become  less  frequent.  There  is  an  »-hl»  and  Mow  in  the  movement  <•!  lal«>r 

'    <  »    ' 


308  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

conflicts,  the  number  of  strikes  increasing  rapidly  in  periods  of  great  pros- 
perity or  sudden  depression  and  decreasing  in  times  of  normal  business  ac- 
tivity. The  trade  unions,  however,  have  largely  stemmed  the  current  of 
strikes.  With  each  year  the  capitalists  of  the  country,  the  men  who  are  en- 
trusted with  the  direction  of  great  industries,  learn  to  realize  more  fully  the 
justification  of  labor  organization,  and,  as  a  consequence,  strikes  for  the  ex- 
istence of  unions  are  becoming  less  necessary.  Man)'  strikes  are  due  to 
misunderstanding  and  may  be  and  arc  averted  by  friendly  meetings  of  the 
parties  in  interest.  When  the  employers  and  workingmen  can  get  together 
about  a  table  and  discuss  the  various  differences  of  opinion  in  a  fair  and 
open  manner,  many  of  the  rash  strikes  and  wanton  lockouts  of  former  times 
will  disappear.  More  can  be  accomplished  by  education  of  both  parties  to 
their  mutual  interest  than  by  strikes.  It  is  only  where  either  employers  or 
employees  absolutely  refuse  to  do  what  is  reasonable,  whether  in  their  in- 
terest or  not,  that  a  temporary  cessation  of  work,  in  the  form  of  a  strike  or 
a  lockout,  is  better  than  a  continuance  of  work. 

Frequently  strikes  are  inevitable,  just  as  there  are  cases  in  which  lock- 
outs cannot  be  avoided.  It  is  commonly  believed  by  people  unacquainted 
with  the  subject  that  workmen  are  responsible  for  strikes  and  employers, 
for  lockouts.  This  is  not  true.  When  the  decisive  action  is  taken  by  the 
employees,  a  cessation  of  work  is  called  a  strike,  and  a  lockout  when  the  in- 
itiative is  taken  by  the  employers.  The  responsibility,  however,  for  a  strike 
or  for  a  lockout  does  not  necessarily  rest  with  the  person  who  takes  the  de- 
cisive step,  but  with  the  party  at  fault,  either  in  making  unreasonable  de- 
mands, or  in  refusing  to  accede  to  reasonable  demands.  Employers  are  oc- 
casionally responsible  for  strikes,  as  workmen  are  occasionally  responsible 
for  lockouts.  In  fact,  it  is  often  extremely  difficult  to  draw  a  line,  or  to 
make  a  distinction  between  the  two,  since  in  many  cases  it  cannot  be  deter- 
mined by  which  side  hostilities  were  begun. 

It  is  often  said  that  strikes  do  not  pay.  The  anti-union  newspapers 
of  the  country  are  a  unit  upon  this  point,  and  even  many  friends  of  the 
workingman  claim  thai  it  never  pays  to  strike.  \Ye  frequently  hear  it 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  309 

stated  that  by  a  strike  workmen  lose  more  in  a  month  than  they  may  hope 
to  regain  in  years,  and  that  consequently  practically  all  strikes  are  use- 
less and  unremunerative.  It  seems  to  me  that  such  a  judgment,  which  is 
based  on  a  calculation  of  mere  dollars  and  cents,  is  inherently  wrong,  be- 
cause incomplete.  One  might  just  as  well  impugn  the  common  sense  of  the 
farmers  of  Lexington,  since  the  cost  of  a  war  with  Great  Britain  was  a  hun- 
dredfold greater  than  the  whole  amount  of  taxation  without  representation. 
There  is  more  in  a  strike  than  wages  or  hours  of  labor,  and  a  strike  may  be 
a  loss  from  a  money  point  of  view  and  a  great  gain  in  a  higher  and  nobler 
sense.  The  cost  of  strikes  has  been  grossly  exaggerated,  and  the  IXMIC- 
fits  conferred  by  them  unduly  minimized.  A  careful  compilation  has 
been  carried  on  during  the  last  twenty  years  by  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Labor,  and  the  cost  to  employers  and  employees  of  all  strikes  in  all 
industries  has  been  ascertained  for  the  period  from  January  i,  1881,  to  De- 
ceml)cr  31,  1900.  As  a  result  of  this  work,  which  was  efficiently  organized 
and  well  conducted.  Commissioner  Carroll  1).  \Yright  says:  "The  losses  to 
employers  and  employees  under  all  conflicts,  both  strikes  and  lockouts,  oc- 
curring in  this  period,  1881-1900,  amounted  to  the  enormous  sum  of 
$468,968,681." 

In  other  words,  the  direct  losses  resulting  from  strikes  and  lockouts  ^ 
during  the  last  twenty  years  were  about  $469.000.000.  of  which  nlxMit  ;  <> 
were  attributed  to  strikes  and  I  6  to  lockout «.  This  sccm>  to  be  a  large 
sum.  but  when  spread  over  the  whole  period,  it  amounts  to  an  actu.nl  l<>.-> 
of  only  38^  |XM'  \ear.  or  about  .}<"  1)CI"  month  for  each  inhabitant.  \- 
:t  nation  we  spent  during  this  period  more  th;m  live  limes  ;is  nuirh  upon 
pensions  as  upon  strikes,  and  the  American  people  have  expended  more 
during  the  last  four  months  for  railroad  transportation  than  they  have  lost 
in  strikes  and  lockouts  during  twenty  year?.  Roughly  shaking,  the  aver- 
age workingman  has  spent  very  much  less  than  i<  of  his  income  on  strikes 
or  lockouts. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  time  lost  through  strikes.     If  we  multiply  the 
number  of  days  of  unemployment  by  the  number  of  men  who  are  out  of 


310  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

work,  the  total  loss  amounts  to  194,000,000  days;  but  spread  over  the  whole 
period,  this  loss  amounts  to  very  much  less  than  one  day  per  year  for  each 
adult  worker.  In  other  words,  the  workmen  of  the  United  States  have  lost 
less  time  from  strikes  and  lockouts  than  from  the  celebration  of  the  Fourth 
of  July  or  any  other  legal  holiday,  and  the  leisure  resulting  from  strikes  has 
not  been  1/50  of  that  caused  by  the  general  observance  of  the  Sabbath. 
The  total  amount  of  time  lost  by  strikes  and  lockouts  during  the  last  twenty 
years  would  be  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  addition  of  four  minutes  to 
the  average  working  day.  Much  of  even  this  comparatively  slight  loss,  more- 
over, is  merely  apparent.  "The  days  so  lost,"  says  Commissioner  Wright, 
"do  not  represent  absolute  loss,  as  cessation  of  work  or  production  often 
does  away  with  the  necessity  of  stoppage  at  some  other  time  for  restricting 
the  output  to  the  demands  of  trade  and  making  repairs."  Thus,  in  the  coal 
mining  industry,  which  furnished  almost  one-third  of  all  strikes  during  the 
last  two  decades,  a  large  portion  of  the  time  lost  through  strikes  would 
probably  have  been  lost  in  any  case,  since  the  number  of  idle  days  in  the 
anthracite  regions,  due  to  no  fault  of  the  miners,  averaged  1 1 1  working  days 
per  year,  while  the  days  lost  by  strikes  certainly  did  not  exceed  ten  per  year. 
The  result  of  many  of  the  coal  strikes  preceding  that  of  1902,  had  been  to 
close  the  mines  at  one  time,  instead  of  closing  them  at  another. 

I  do  not  wish  to  argue  that  strikes  are  not  a  great  evil,  nor  that  much 
hardship  is  not  caused  by  them.  The  loss  to  the  whole  body  of  workmen 
may  be  very  small,  and  still  the  hardship  to  individuals  be  acute  and  severe. 
In  every  strike  individuals  are  bound  to  suffer,  and  the  fasting  of  to-day  is 
not  compensated  for  by  the  feasting  of  to-morrow.  There  are  many  losses 
in  a  strike,  moreover,  which  do  not  fall  upon  either  of  the  two  contestants. 
Thus,  in  many  railroad  and  street  railway  strikes,  the  greatest  sufferers  are 
the  public,  who  are  deprived  of  comforts  or  even  of  necessaries.  Another 
loss  to  the  community  results  from  a  feeling  of  insecurity,  which  is  shown  in 
the  strike  clauses-to  contracts,  as  well  as  in  the  shock  which  the  community 
experiences  whenever  a  great  strike  is  declared. 

There  are,  however,  great  compensating  advantages  in  strikes,  espe- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  311 

cially  \vhcn  inaugurated  for  a  good  purpose  and  carried  on  in  the  proper 
spirit.  The  shock  of  which  I  have  just  spoken  is  in  itself  frequently  of  con- 
siderable advantage  to  the  community.  \Yorkingmen,  like  employers,  get 
into  ruts,  and  the  strike,  or  anything  else  which  changes  the  ordinary  con- 
stitution of  industry,  frequently  leads  to  the  adoption  of  better  methods 
of  production  and  to  increased  output.  In  many  cases,  strikes  have  re- 
sulted in  the  adoption  of  labor-saving  devices  or  improved  machinery,  and 
the  output  of  an  industry  after  a  strike  has  often  been  much  greater  than 
before  its  inception. 

Apart  from  this  fact,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  really  justifiable 
strikes — and  the  majority  of  the  strikes  in  the  I'nited  States  have  been 
justifiable — have  resulted  in  a  great  advantage  to  the  workmen.  Strikes 
have  paid,  and  strikes,  when  for  a  good  pur]x>se  and  conducted  in  a  proper 
manner,  will  continue  to  pay.  \Yhilc  the  workingman  has  lost  during  the 
last  twenty  years  less  than  one  per  cent,  of  his  wages  in  strikes  and  lockouts, 
and  the  loss  in  time  from  this  enforced  idleness  has  been  less  than  one  day 
per  year,  the  gains  derived  from  strikes,  or  what  has  been  the  same  thing, 
the  fear  of  strikes,  have  Ixx'n  very  much  in  excess  of  one  j>er  cent,  increase 
in  wages.  Xot  only  have  wages  been  largely  increased,  hours  of  lalx>r  re- 
duced, and  conditions  generally  improved,  but  the  whole  moral  tone  of  the 
workingmcn  of  the  community  has  been  appreciably  elevated. 

It  is,  of  course,  not  true  and  it  cannot  be  claimed,  that  all  that  has  been 
gained  by  the  workingmen  has  been  obtained  through  strikes.  Some  ot 
this  advance  has  been  due  to.  or,  at  least,  has  been  rendered  jx>ssible  by.  the 
increased  intelligence  and  prcxluctivity  of  labor,  by  the  adoption  of  new  m.i 
chines,  and  by  the  better  organization  of  \\orkn;en  in  factories  and  mines; 
but  a  large  percentage  of  gain,  a  percentage  f.ir  ii.  excess  ,,f  the  « >ne  per  cent, 
cost,  has  resulted  from  the  fact  that  through  organi/ation  the  men  \\ere  able 
and  willing,  in  case  of  necessity,  to  strike  effective  1\ .  \\  bile  any  particular 
strike  may  not  ha\e  been  a  paying  investment,  there  can  U-  little  doubt  tint 
strikes  in  the  aggregate  have  benefited  the  working  classes  much  more  than 
they  have  cost  or  injured  them. 


312  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

We  have  heard  much  of  late  of  the  right  to-  work,  and  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  under  normal  conditions,  and  without  prejudice  to  the  rights 
of  others,  all  men  should  be  permitted  to  earn  their  bread  in  the  sweat  of 
their  brow.  There  is  another  right,  however,  as  sacred  and  as  inalienable, 
namely,  the  right  not  to  work,  the  right  to  desist  from  work  either  singly 
or  concertedly,  when  conditions  are  such  as  to  render  this  action  advis- 
able and  justifiable.  There  is  no  doubt  that  strikes  are  evil,  but  they  are 
not  so  evil  as  industrial  oppression,  not  so  evil  as  the  truck  system,  not  so 
evil  as  the  sweating  in  our  great  cities,  not  so  evil  as  unregulated  exploita- 
tion of  woman  and  child  labor.  The  great  majority  of  strikes  in  the  United 
States  have  had  justifiable  reasons.  During  the  last  twenty  years,  of 
all  the  strikes  in  the  United  States,  58^,  as  measured  by  the  number  of  es- 
tablishments affected,  were  fought  out  either  for  an  increase  of  wages,  a 
decrease  in  hours,  or  both,  or  against  an  attempted  reduction  in  wages,  while 
only  3^  were  sympathetic  demonstrations  with  other  workers,  and  less  than 
\\%  for  the  sole  avowed  purpose  of  obtaining  recognition  of  the  union. 
Moreover,  of  these  strikes  the  majority  were  won,  over  one-half  being 
wholly,  and  over  one-eighth,  partially,  successful,  while  less  than  three- 
eighths  failed  completely.  Moreover,  it  has  been  the  intelligent  and  better 
class  of  workmen  who  have  struck,  and  not  the  ragtag  of  the  army.  "Labor 
conflicts,"  says  Commissioner  Wright,  ''grow  out  of  increased  intelligence 

fools  do  not  strike.     It  is  only  men  who  have  intelligence  enough 

to  recognize  their  condition  that  make  use  of  this  last  resort."  It  is  the 
states  with  the  highest  industrial  development,  such  as  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, Illinois,  Massachusetts,  and  Ohio,  which  have  a  disproportionately 
large  number  of  labor  conflicts ;  whereas  in  the  more  backward  states,  strikes 
are  much  fewer.  It  has  often  been  observed  that  when  a  strike  is  justifiable 
demand  for  fair  treatment,  when  it  is  only  the  possible  expression  of  a  "di- 
vine discontent,"  it  is  the  heroes  among  the  workmen  who  are  in  the  van  of 
the  movement.  What  is  true  of  states  is  equally  true  of  nations.  Strikes 
are  most  frequent  in  thbse  countries  in  which  civilization  is  most  highly 


-  . 
g.5 


^  c 

c  2. 

c  n 

3  - 


3      2 


o 

C/3 


fc 
53 

fc 

O 

fc 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  313 

developed.     As  a  matter  of  fact,  strikes  are  practically  unknown  in  the  less 
advanced  nations. 

In  all  conflicts  of  this  sort,  where  men  are  fighting  for  a  principle  or  for 
tolerable  conditions  of  life,  there  is,  apart  from  its  material  advantages,  a 
great  moral  gain  derived  from  the  strike.  It  is  difficult  to  overestimate 
the  gain  from  a  righteous  labor  uprising,  and  there  are  few  moral  forces 
more  uplifting  than  the  strike  spirit  that  cements  a  vast  army  of  crude  men. 
It  is  to  be  accounted  an  evil  in  strikes  that  they  cause  bitter  feelings  between 
employers  and  employed,  and  between  union  and  non-union  men.  although 
frequently  a  strike  has  the  opposite  tendency  of  clearing  the  atmosphere. 
Strikes  have,  however,  at  least  this  compensating  advantage,  that  they  unite 
with  the  bond  of  mutual  self-sacrifice  the  men  who  arc  fighting  together 
for  the  good  of  the  whole.  We  conceive  of  strikes  in  a  militant  sense,  but 
a  strike  is  a  siege  rather  than  an  assault.  A  strike  cannot  be  won  by  a 
single  action,  but  requires  the  greatest  amount  of  endurance,  patience,  and 
self-control.  The  striker  must  husband  his  resources,  must  remain  sober, 
must  economize  for  the  sake  of  his  wife  and  children,  must  aid  his  neigh- 
bor who  is  needier  than  he,  and  must  refrain  from  all  manner  of  violence 
and  all  incentive  to  excitement.  Day  by  day  must  he  watch  his  supplies 
getting  lower,  must  see  perhaps  his  wife  and  children  gro\\ing  pallid  un.ler 
the  stress  of  privation,  must  see  other  men  work  in  his  place,  sometimes  at 
wages  higher  than  those  for  which  he  struck.  The  striker  inns',  refrain 
from  manifesting  any  bitterness  towards  those  who  have  taken  Ins  place. 
or  towards  the  men  who  have  l>een  imported  into  his  town  for  the  sake  ot 
frightening  him  into  submission.  He  must  turn  the  other  cheek  to  tin- 
swaggering  bullies  engaged  as  private  police,  and  must  in  all  eases  retrain 
I'rom  entering  into  a  contest  with  them.  Temptation  o>nu>  to  Mich  a  man 
to  sell  out  his  fellows  for  the  sake  of  great  gain  to  himself.  He  is  offered 
all  manner  of  bribes,  from  a  tetter  position  to  a  direct  money  gift,  and  he 
is  told  continually  by  agents  of  the  employer  that  other  men  are  deserting 
and  that  he  is  a  fool  to  suffer  that  others  may  take  advantage  of  his  sacri- 
fice. The  courage,  the  steadfastness,  the  quiet  endurance  of  workmen  upon 


314  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

a  strike  verge  upon  the  heroic.  It  is  not  good  reading  matter,  not  good 
"copy,"  and  the  papers  make  nothing  of  it.  A  hundred  thousand  men  dis- 
play exceptional  self-denial  and  self-restraint,  and  the  press  of  the  country- 
is  dumb.  A  single  man  wields  a  club  or  heaves  a  brick,  and  the  wires  arc 
hot  with  telegrams  to  all  parts  of  the  world.  To  the  man  who  has  lived 
through  a  strike,  however,  the  great  compensation  for  its  evils  is  the  quiet, 
modest,  unrecorded  heroism  which  it  calls  forth. 

When  a  strike  is  thus  fought  out  upon  a  moral  basis,  when  men  throw 
into  the  scale  their  bread  and  the  bread  of  their  wives  and  children,  when 
men  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  and  fight  the  dreary  tragic  battle  of  star- 
vation and  eviction,  the  contest  cannot  be  lost.  It  is  a  commonplace  among 
unionists  that  a  strike  lost  is  a  strike  won.  The  men  may  yield,  they  may 
be  starved,  shot,  beaten,  they  may  lose  in  wages  and  confidence,  but  others 
are  encouraged  by  their  struggle;  and  their  fellow-workers  and  eventually 
they  themselves  gain  by  their  sacrifice.  The  workingmen  are  saved  from 
the  aggression  of  unscrupulous  members  of  the  employing  class,  not  only 
by  their  ability  to  win  strikes,  but  by  their  willingness  to  fight  even  a  losing- 
battle. 

While  recognizing  the  advantages  which  may  come  from  strikes,  how- 
ever, the  approved  policy  of  the  best  unions  is  to  give  their  vote  for  peace 
wherever  there  is  a  reasonable  measure  of  doubt.  No  more  than  employers 
do  unions  favor  strikes  and  lockouts;  like  employers,  they  resort  to  them 
only  in  extreme  cases.  With  the  growth  of  unions  in  funds  and  member- 
ship the  number  of  strikes  tends  to  diminish.  In  its  infancy  an  organization 
may  be  reckless  and  aggressive,  but  its  approach  to  manhood  almost  invari- 
ably brings  with  it  an  increased  sense  of  responsibility.  It  has  been  observed 
in  England,  as  in  the  United  States,  that  unions  make  for  peace  and  not 
for  war.  The  effect  of  the  change  from  small,  unorganized  bodies  of  work- 
men to  a  single,  homogeneous  union  has  been  similar  to  that  of  the  change 
from  little,  reckless,  fighting,  cantankerous  principalities  to  a  single,  strong, 
unified  nation.  Trade  unions  are  the  most  effective,  but  not  the  most  fre- 
quent strikers,  and  it  is  because  they  can  strike  so  effectively  that  they  are 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  315 

not  obliged  to  do  it  frequently.  The  unions,  moreover,  approve  the  policy 
of  conciliation,  voluntary  arbitration,  and  trade  agreements,  so  that  with 
stable  conditions  the  number  of  strikes  will  diminish.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  unions  and  those  employers  who  favor  trade  agreements  arc 
doing  their  utmost  to  prevent  the  wastefulness  of  strikes.  On  the  other 
hand,  those  employers  who  insist  upon  managing  their  own  business  and 
upon  dealing  only  with  their  own  employees  are,  because  of  their  arbitrary 
and  dictatorial  methods,  responsible  for  the  majority  of  strikes.  \Yith  the 
growth  of  a  spirit  of  mutual  concession  and  with  a  better  understanding  of 
the  needs  and  aspirations  of  both  classes,  the  necessity  for,  and  justification 
of,  the  great  majority  of  strikes  will  pass  away. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI 
THE  PROPER  CONDUCT  OF  A  STRIKE 

How  a  Strike  Must  be  Conducted.  Maintaining  Enthusiasm.  Informing  the  Pub- 
lic. Alertness  and  Vigilance.  Errors  Inevitable.  The  Moral  Aspect  of  Strikes  and  of 
Lockouts.  Violence  Defeats  its  own  Purpose.  Better  to  Lose  Strikes  than  Win  by 
Violence.  Violence  and  Peaceful  Picketing.  Individual  Crimes  and  Union  Respon- 
sibility. Exaggeration.  The  Sinews  of  War.  The  Financiering  of  a  Strike. 

THE  responsibility  of  a  labor  leader  does  not  cease  with  the  calling  of  a 
strike.  A  strike  may  be  perfectly  justifiable  both  in  morals  and 
policy;  it  may  be  an  inevitable  revolt  against  intolerable  oppression,  and 
may  be  inaugurated  with  every  likelihood  of  success.  Unless  properly  con- 
ducted, however,  a  strike,  be  it  ever  so  just,  ever  so  noble  in  its  purposes 
and  aims,  may  very  well  be  lost. 

The  problems  involved  in  the  conduct  of  a  strike  are  many  and 
pressing,  and  the  whole  strike  may  collapse  through  failure  to  meet  any 
issue,  however  suddenly  raised.  It  is  necessary  to  keep  up  the  spirit  of  the 
men  struggling,  it  may  be,  against  great  odds,  and  to  infuse  the  weaker 
members  with  the  hope  of  the  more  confident.  It  is  especially  necessary  to 
conserve  the  funds  of  the  organization  and  to  distribute  relief  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  satisfy  the  needs  and  maintain  the  strength  of  the  strikers. 
It  is  no  less  necessary  to  be  aware  at  all  times  of  the  resources  of  the  strikers 
as  well  as  of  the  strength,  tenacity  and  purposes  of  the  opponent.  The  leader 
of  the  strikers  must  ever  be  open  to  any  reasonable  proposition  made  by 
the  other  side,  and  must  give  heed  and  respectful  attention  to  any  suggestion 
made  by  disinterested  parties.  The  sympathy  of  the  public  must  be  secured 
by  the  fair  presentation  of  the  strikers'  side  of  the  controversy,  and  this 
sympathy  must  be  retained  by  reasonable  conduct  and  moderate  and  temper- 
ate action  throughout.  The  enthusiasm  of  the  men  for  the  strike  must  con- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  317 

stantly  be  kept  up,  and  those  who  have  wavered  or  who  have  strayed 
from  the  fold  must  be  approached  and  urged  to  return.  Attempts  must  be 
made  by  peaceable  methods  to  prevent  the  importation  of  new  men,  and 
where  this  has  already  occurred,  efforts  must  be  made  to  induce  them  or  aid 
them  to  seek  employment  elsewhere.  Above  all  and  1>eyond  all.  the  leader 
entrusted  with  the  conduct  of  a  strike  must  be  alert  and  vigilant  in  the  pre- 
vention of  violence.  The  strikers  must  be  made  constantly  aware  of  the 
imperative  necessity  of  remaining  peaceable.  They  must  l>e  urged  to  re- 
main in  their  homes  except  when  picketing,  and  attempts  must  be  made  to- 
prevent  them  from  drinking,  or  from  engaging  in  brawls  with  men  upon 
the  other  side.  The  strike  leader  must  secure  the  sympathy  of  other  unions 
and  of  all  reasonable  men  in  the  community,  and  must  endeavor  to  prevent 
the  abuse  of  power  or  opportunity  by  his  opponents.  However  careful  he- 
may  be  and  however  great  his  foresight,  there  will  ari.se  daily  scores  «>i 
situations  claiming  his  immediate  attention  and  requiring  for  their  solution 
a  clear  judgment,  great  tact  and  jiatience.  and  the  ability  and  willingius- 
to  make  an  immediate  decision. 

Xo  man  can  conduct  a  strike  without  making  at  least  some  errors.  N'o 
labor  leader  pretends  to  be  infallible,  and  no  one  \\iio  has  gone  through  a 
strike  and  has  been  entrusted  with  its  leadership,  can  believe  that  it  is  jx.s- 
sible  to  carry  such  a  conllict  to  a  successful  conclusion  without  In-ing  in 
volved  in  errors  of  commission  and  omission.  At  such  times  every  letter 
may  l>e  a  trick,  every  message  from  supjx»sedly  disinterested  parties  a  Mi.:rr 
intended  to  defeat  the  aims  of  the  strike.  I  hit  the  leader  111  such  emergrn- 
cits  must  endeavor  to  render  his  mistakes  as  lew  as  jx^sible  and  to  ap- 
proach each  problem  with  the  single  view  of  taking  the  action  IxM  calcu- 
lated to  advance  the  interests  of  the  men  and  the  \\eltare  oi  the  public. 

There  is  very  much  more  written  about  the  projirr  conduct  ot  a  strike 
from  the  moral  point  of  view  than  alx>nt  the  projKT  handling  of  a  lork«r,t. 
or  the  proper  conduct  of  employers  during  strikes.  'I  he  resjxmsibilities  ot 
lalxjr  leaders  arc  treated  as  fully  and  exhaustively  as  are  the  rights  "i  em- 
ployers and  of  non-union  men,  but  one  looks  in  vain  for  any  adequate  con- 


318  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

sideration  of  the  rights  of  labor  unions  in  a  strike,  or  of  the  responsibilities 
of  employers  and  the  duties  of  non-union  men.  The  discussions  all  turn 
upon  what  unionists  must  do  and  refrain  from  doing,  what  rules  they  must 
obey,  just  what  points  of  etiquette  and  procedure  they  must  observe.  We 
hear  many  statements  as  to  how  the  men  must  or  must  not  strike  and  how, 
what,  and  when  they  should  boycott,  but  nothing  is  said  of  the  duties  or  re- 
sponsibilities of  employers  to  men  locked  out,  the  use  of  the  blacklist  and  the 
injunction,  the  arming  of  private  police,  the  orders  "to  shoot  to  kill"  on  the 
wholesale,  the  eviction  of  helpless  tenants,  etc.  I  do  not  desire  to  thrust 
advice  or  criticism  upon  employers,  however,  and  I  shall  therefore  limit  my 
remarks  to  a  statement  of  how  the  men  and  officers  of  a  union  should  con- 
duct themselves  during  an  industrial  conflict. 

Under  no  circumstances  should  a  strike  be  allowed  to  degenerate  into 
violence.  There  are  times,  when  a  great  issue  is  at  stake  and  the  struggle 
seems  about  to  be  lost,  when  the  use  of  brute  force  appears  for  a  moment  to 
be  desirable.  This,  however,  is  a  shortsighted  policy  and  brings  with  it 
its  own  punishment.  A  single  act  of  violence,  while  it  may  deter  a  strike 
breaker  or  a  score  of  them,  inflicts  much  greater  and  more  irreparable 
damage  upon  the  party  giving  than  upon  the  party  receiving  the  blow. 
Violence  invariably  alienates  the  sympathy  of  the  public.  No  matter  how 
just  the  demands  of  the  men,  no  matter  how  unreasonable  and  uncompro- 
mising the  attitude  of  the  employer,  the  commission  of  acts  of  violence  in- 
variably puts  the  strikers  in  the  wrong.  The  public  absolutely  closes  its 
eyes  to  the  merits  of  a  controversy  when  one  party  or  the  other  has  actively 
stimulated  or  has  condoned  acts  of  violence.  The  use  of  force  is  properly 
considered  a  sign  of  weakness.  The  leader  who  desires  to  carry  a  strike 
to  a  successful  conclusion  must,  therefore,  even  as  a  matter  of  policy,  en- 
deavor to  prevent  the  commission  of  such  acts. 

It  should  not  be  permitted  to  plead  in  defense  of  lawbreakers  that  a 
strike  is  war.  Just  as  in  actual  war  the  contestants,  under  penalty  of  for- 
feiting the  sympathy  of  all  other  nations,  are  compelled  to  govern  themselves 
by  the  principles  of  international  law  prescribing  the  rights  of  combatants 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  319 

and  of  non-combatants,  so  the  two  parties  engaged  in  a  strike  must  abide 
scrupulously  by  the  provisions  of  the  law.  A  strike  or  a  lockout  is  coercion, 
but  it  is  lawful,  whereas  a  resort  to  physical  force  is  both  immoral  and  un- 
lawful. 

It  is  sometimes  claimed  that  no  strike  can  l>e  won  without  the  use  of 
physical  force.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  is  true,  but  if  it  is.  it  is  better  that 
the  strike  be  lost  than  that  it  succeed  through  \  iolence  and  the  commission 
of  outrages.  The  cause  of  unionism  is  not  lost  through  any  strike  or 
through  any  number  of  strikes,  and  if  it  were  true  that  all  strikes  would 
fail  if  physical  force  could  not  be  resorted  to,  it  would  be  better  to  demon- 
strate that  fact  and  to  seek  remedy  in  other  directions  than  to  permit  strikes 
to  degenerate  into  conflicts  between  armed  men.  If  it  be  shown  that  strikes 
cannot  be  won  without  violence,  then  it  w  ill  be  necessary  to  secure  reforms 
for  workingmen  exclusively  through  political  action. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  conduct  of  strikes  without  violence  is  as  ad- 
vantageous and  successful  as  the  use  of  violence  is  futile  and  immoral.  In 
the  long  run.  violence  acts  as  a  boomerang  and  defeats  its  own  puri>oses. 
\o  group  of  workmen  can  resist  the  force  of  the  state  militia,  or  of  the  reg- 
ular army  of  the  t'nited  States,  and  if  it  should  come  to  an  armed  conflict, 
the  Federal  government  would,  with  the  approval  of  the  community,  raise, 
if  necessary,  as  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  troops  t<>  maintain  peace 
as  were  used  against  the  seceding  states  in  the  \Var  of  the  Kelxrllion.  '1  he 
whole  force  of  public  opinion  and  the  undivided  sentiment  oi  the  wage 
earners  of  the  country  would  l>e  united  uj>on  the  suppression  ot  acts  of  vio- 
lence and  of  insurrection  against  the  constituted  authorities. 

\Vorkingnieii  gain  by  their  abstention  from  violence:  as  they  gain  by 
e\ery  acknowledgment  of  the  rights  of  employers  and  of  the  public.  It  is 
essential  !••  workingmen  on  strike  that  the  right  to  picket  be  maintained, 
but  picketing  itself  dejiciids  UJKMI  abstaining  from  violence.  'I  he  best  picket 
is  the  man  who  is  not  violent  and  who  docs  not  threaten,  but  relies  entirely 
upon  the  power  of  persuasion  and  ap]>cals  to  the  manho«»,|  r,|  the  strike 
breaker.  A  man  \\ith  a  club  in  nis  hand  or  a  pi-l'-l  in  his  jcn-1-.ei  has  not 


320  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

the  time  or  the  patience  to  waste  on  argument,  and  by  refraining  from 
violence  or  threats  of  violence  the  unions  secure  the  services  of  a  much  more 
efficient  class  of  pickets.  There  are  men,  it  is  true,  who  can  be  intimi- 
dated, but  not  persuaded ;  it  is  better,  however,  to  suffer  the  injury  that  these 
men  can  inflict  than  to  inflict  violence  upon  them.  The  struggle  of  labor 
is  not  for  a  day  or  a  month  or  a  year.  The  employer  cannot  permanently 
keep  the  strike  breakers.  Even  when  successful,  the  employer  who  has  had 
a  strike  fears  its  recurrence  as  a  burnt  child  fears  the  fire.  The  strike  will 
more  likely  be  won  if  violence  is  not  resorted  to,  but  even  should  a  case 
arise  where  violence  is  necessary  to  the  victory  of  the  men,  it  is  better  to  trust 
to  the  hope  of  snatching  victory  from  defeat  itself  than  to  put  the  union  and 
the  strikers  irretrievably  in  the  wrong  by  resorting  to  force. 

The  employers  are  perfectly  justified  in  condemning  as  harshly  as  they 
desire  the  acts  of  any  striker  or  strikers,  who  are  guilty  of  violence.  I  wel- 
come the  most  sweeping  denunciation  of  such  acts  and  the  widest  publicity 
that  may  be  given  to  them  by  the  press.  In  this  the  employers  and  the 
newspapers  are  simply  supplementing  the  work  of  trade  unionists  them- 
selves who  are  endeavoring  to  stamp  out  all  incentive  to  acts  of  violence. 
What  the  trade  unionist,  however,  does  object  to,  is  the  use  which  is  made 
of  the  occurrence  of  acts  of  violence  to  discredit  persons  and  parties  who 
are  in  no  wise  responsible.  The  union  should  not  be  held  responsible  for  the 
acts  of  individual  members  done  without  its  consent,  sanction,  or  approba- 
tion, and  even  in  direct  contravention  of  distinct  and  specific  orders  to  main- 
tain peace.  The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  is  no  more  legally  or 
morally  responsible  for  the  three  or  four  murders  or  for  the  other  acts  of 
violence  committed  by  individual  mineworkers  or  by  sympathizers  during 
the  coal  strike  of  1902,  than  would  the  Philadelphia  &  Reading  Railroad 
te  for  the  unwarranted  actions  of  a  coal  and  iron  policeman  in  the  course 
of  a  drunken  brawl.  In  fact,  the  railroad  corporations  should  have  been 
held  more  responsible  for  lawbreakers  directly  employed  by  them,  than  the 
Union  for  men  who  were  not  its  agents.  A  union  is  no  more  responsible 


o 
U 


u 

- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  321 

for  the  violence  of  individuals  than  is  a  corporation  for  the  unwarranted 
actions  of  its  several  stockholders. 

The  unlawful  conduct  of  individual  men  is  also  used  by  employers  to 
exaggerate  the  amount  of  violence  and  to  make  it  appear  as  though  a  state 
of  lawlessness  and  anarchy  prevailed.  There  is  also  a  constant  temptation 
on  the  part  of  some  newspapers  to  exaggerate,  to  make  as  dramatic  as  pos- 
sible any  act  of  disorder  that  may  occur.  Peaceful  conventions  of  trade 
unions  are  made  to  appear  like  wild  gatherings  of  excited  and  irrational 
men.  Accounts  of  meetings  conducted  with  decorum  and  due  regard  in 
parliamentary  procedure  read,  oftentimes,  in  some  of  the  newspapers,  like 
reports  of  incipient  riots.  A  group  of  two  or  three  pickets  peacefully  sta- 
tioned outside  a  factory  grows,  in  some  newspaper  stories,  into  a  surging 
and  intractable  mob,  and  a  drunken  bra\\l  l>etwecn  men  in  no  wise  con- 
nected with  the  union  becomes  a  deliberate  attempt  on  the  part  of  unionists 
to  molest,  cripple,  and  injure  non-unionists.  The  amount  of  \iolence  ac- 
tually committed  is  grossly  exaggerated  and  that  which  is  fairly  traceable 
to  the  officials  of  trade  unions  is  almost  infinitesimal.  What  little  there  is 
should  be  visited  with  the  strong  disapproval  of  public  opinion  and  swift 
and  condign  punishment  by  the  courts;  but  the  amount  should  not  l>e  ex- 
aggerated, and  the  responsibility  should  IK-  fixed  upon  the  |>erpetratoi^. 
Above  all,  the  theory  and  justifiable  practices  of  trade  unionism  should  n..: 
be  assailed  on  account  of  violence  or  other  illegal  acts  committed  in  its  nrnn«-. 

There  -are  more  men  killed  on  the  Fourth  of  Inly  from  e\p'- •<!<•!)< 
from  resulting  lockjaw,  than  are  killed  in  all  the  Mnkes  in  all  ilu-  citic^ 
the  country  on  all  days  of  the  year.      More  men  are  killed  in  elo  tn-n  brav, 
and  more  violence  is  committed  on  election  day.  than  ran  he  charged  K,  tlu 
account  of  all  strikes  in  the  United  States  during  the  ' 
are  more  arrests  made  in  the  city  of  Chicago  or  in  the  cit\   of  \Y\\ 
in  one  month,  than  have  probably  been  occasioned  by  all  the  -irikes  in  the^e 
I'nited  States  for  one  hundred  years.      No  r.ne  \\onld   ar-ne   from  this 
however,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  i>  at    fault.  r>r  that   elec- 
tions should  be  abolished,  or  that  the  m.ivnr  of  New   York   or  Chicago 


322  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

is  responsible.  Critics  oi  trade  unionism  do  not  make  a  distinction 
between  the  making  of  law  and  its  enforcement.  The  state  of  Illinois  or 
of  New  York,  specifically  condemns  murder,  arson,  burglary,  and  theft,  but 
the  governments  of  these  states  are  not  necessarily  responsible  when  these 
crimes  are  occasionally  committed.  A  trade  union,  moreover,  is  not  even 
in  the  position  of  a  sovereign  state,  it  has  not  the  right  to  punish  the  of- 
fender. The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  was  accused  of  aiding  and 
abetting  violence  because,  in  advance  of  the  trials  of  a  feAV  perpetrators  of 
such  violence,  it  refrained  from  expelling  them  from  the  union.  It  would 
be  as  fair  to  condemn  the  Christian  Churches  for  failing  to  exclude  from 
membership  men  who  were  accused,  but  not  convicted,  of  crime.  These 
churches  are  sincerely  opposed  to  the  perpetration  of  crime,  but  do  not  con- 
ceive it  to  be  within  their  province  to  inflict  a  punishment  of  this  nature, 
especially  in  advance  of  action  by  the  courts.  The  attitude  of  the  trade 
union  is  identical. 

During  the  five  months  of  the  anthracite  strike  eight  men  were  killed, 
three  or  four  of  these  deaths  being  caused  by  men  on  strike  or  claiming  to 
be  in  sympathy  with  the  union,  while  if  the  mines  had  been  operated  during 
this  period  and  had  maintained  the  average  number  of  accidents,  two  hun- 
dred men  would  have  been  killed  and  six  hundred  seriously  maimed  or  in- 
jured. Of  course  I  do  not  put  the  murder  of  men  in  brawls  upon  a  par 
with  the  killing  of  men  as  a  result  of  dangerous  occupations,  or  through 
the  negligence  of  operators  or  their  foremen.  It  is  well,  however,  that  acts 
of  violence  not  only  diminish,  but  absolutely  disappear.  Life  is  sacred, 
though  it  be  in  the  body  of  an  incurable,  a  lunatic,  an  epileptic,  a  criminal. 
or  a  professional  strike  breaker  willing  to  assume  the  risk  o<f  his  profession ; 
and  the  union  should  assist  the  state  in  the  maintenance  of  order  and  the 
preservation  of  the  life  of  even  the  men  opposed  to  it.  With  the  advance 
in  strength  and  the  growth  in  age  of  the  unions,  the  amount  of  violence 
accompanying  strikes,  small  as  it  now  is,  will  be  even  lessened,  and  strikes 
will  be  in  practice  what  they  are  in  theory,  simply  and  solely  a  peaceful  ab- 
stention of  men  from  work. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  525 

A  most  important  feature  in  the  conduct  of  a  strike  is  the  collection 
and  distribution  of  funds.  No  protracted  strike  can  be  carried  on  without 
money,  and  since  the  burden  of  the  strike,  no  matter  when  it  comes,  must 
fall  largely  upon  the  strikers,  all  unions,  however  peaceable,  should  provide 
themselves  with  a  defense  fund,  to  be  used  only  if  absolutely  necessary. 
Strikes  called  by  or  with  the  approval  of  a  national  organization  should  re- 
ceive the  entire  financial  support  of  the  union.  The  maxim  should  be,  "Be- 
ware of  entrance  to  a  quarrel,  but  being  in,  bcar't  that  the  opposed  may 
beware  of  thee."  The  union  should  be  chary  of  engaging  in  strikes,  should 
not  call  them  as  "bluffs''  or  threats,  but  when  once  launched  upon  a  justi- 
fiable conflict,  in  which  there  is  the  slightest  hope  of  success,  it  should  be  de- 
termined to  sacrifice  the  last  penny  of  its  funds. 

There  needs  more  than  good  intention  in  this  matter;  more  is  neces- 
sary than  money.  Some  system  must  be  arranged,  efficacious,  reliable,  and 
not  open  to  abuse  either  in  the  collection  or  the  distribution  of  the  funds. 
During  the  anthracite  strike  of  1902  a  well-thought-out  system  was  per- 
fected. The  money  contributed  to  the  sup|x>rt  of  the  strike  was  sent  by  the 
national  union  to  the  district  organizations,  by  the  districts  it  was  forwarded 
to  the  locals,  and  by  the  locals  in  turn,  was  given  to  the  strikers,  in  the  form 
of  store  orders,  and  according  to  the  needs  of  each.  A  system  of  checks 
and  balances  was  devised,  so  as  to  prevent  the  slightest  misappropriation  of 
the  money.  Thus,  as  contributors  to  the  fund  were  assured  of  the  proj)or 
use/ of  their  money,  outside  sup|>ort  was  willingly  given,  so  that  the  men 
were  stronger  and  more  able  to  resist  at  the  close  of  the  contest  than  at  the 
beginning. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII 
THE  INJUNCTION  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES. 

Injunctions  against  Strikers.  History  of  the  Injunction.  Temporary  Injunctions. 
Contempt  of  Court.  No  "Trial  by  Jury."  Nullifying  Fundamental  Constitutional 
Rights.  Injunctions  in  Criminal  Cases.  Injunctions,  the  Anti-Trust  and  Interstate 
Commerce  Laws.  Blanket  Injunctions.  Government  by  Injunction.  The  Bias  of  the 
Appointed  Judges.  Judge  Jackson  and  the  "Vampires."  Injunctions  against  "Feeding 
the  Hungry."  Attempts  to  Abolish  the  Use  of  Injunctions  in  Labor  Disputes.  The 
Liberties  of  the  Whole  Nation  Assailed.  The  Virginia  Law  Unconstitutional.  Deep 
Iniquity  of  the  Injunction.  Ceaseless  Agitation.  An  Amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

NO  weapon  has  been  used  with  such  disastrous  effect  against  trade  unions 
as  the  injunction  in  labor  disputes.  By  means  of  it  trade  unionists 
have  been  prohibited  under  severe  penalties  from  doing  what  they  had  a 
legal  right  to  do,  and  have  been  specifically  directed  to  do  what  they  had  a 
legal  right  not  to  do.  It  is  difficult  to  speak  in  measured  tones  or  moderate 
language  of  the  savagery  and  venom  with  which  unions  have  been  assailed 
by  the  injunction,  and  to  the  working  classes,  as  to  all  fair-minded  men,  it 
seems  little  less  than  a  crime  to  condone  or  tolerate  it. 

Trade  unionists  do  not  object  to'  the  injunction  in  itself.  If  properly 
used  in  its  own  sphere,  as  determined  by  English  and  American  judicial 
decisions  prior  to  1890,  the  injunction  may  be  useful  and  necessary.  An 
injunction  was  merely  an  order  by  a  court  in  equity,  commanding  a  certain 
person  or  persons  to  desist  from  some  action  proposed  or  actually  begun, 
and  it  had  been  effectively  used  for  the  protection  of  property  where  the  in- 
jury contemplated  would  have  been  irreparable,  or  of  such  a  nature  that  ade- 
quate damages  could  not  be  calculated.  The  injunction  was  in  the  nature 
of  an  ounce  of  prevention,  and  was  intended  to  obviate  certain  civil  injuries 
by  applying  to  them  what  was  practically,  though  not  technically,  a  criminal 
punishment. 

(324) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  325 

It  was  not  until  the  opponents  of  trade  unionism  and  the  enemies  of 
the  working  classes  decided  upon  concerted  movement  against  labor  organi- 
zations, that  the  full  possibilities  of  the  injunction,  as  distorted  and  per- 
verted by  the  courts,  became  apparent.  The  method  of  procedure  in  injunc- 
tions is  inimical  to  the  perpetuity  of  free  government,  since  it  sweeps  aside 
all  constitutional  safeguards.  The  judge,  upon  application  and  under  cer- 
tain presented  conditions,  issues  a  preliminary  injunction  against  a  person 
or  persons,  known  or  unknown,  or  against  all  those  engaged  in  a  given  in- 
dustry, without  service  upon  any  of  these  parties  and  without  an  oppor- 
tunity lo  them  to  appear  and  be  heard  l>efore  the  preliminary  injunction  is 
granted.  This  restraining  order  may  be  and  often  is  issued  upon  false  in- 
formation and  j>erjured  statement,  by  illegal  and  improper  method,  and 
upon  a  matter  entirely  beyond  the  legitimate  province  and  jurisdiction  of 
the  court.  The  preliminary  injunction  is  usually  prewired  by  the  plaintiff's 
attorney,  who  states  therein  whatever  he  wishes;  and  no  opportunity  is 
offered  to  the  defendant  IxMore  the  granting  of  the  order,  to  make  countcr- 
alTidavit  (>r  to  show  cause  why  the  preliminary  injunction  should  not  be 
issued.  During  the  often  unreasonably  long  time  which  elapses  between  the 
grant  of  the  preliminary  injunction  and  the  time  set  for  the  hearing  to  de- 
termine whether  that  injunction  shall  be  continued,  a  strike  may  IK.'  l«>st  ami 
thousands  or  tens  of  thousands  of  men  defrauded  of  their  rights  and  disap- 
pointed of  their  justifiable  expectations.  The  preliminary  injunction  tlin* 
produces  exactly  the  evil  which  it  was  intended  to  obviate  or  prevent,  but 
for  the  workingman  there  is  no  remedy  against  the  incalculable  and  irrr 
parable  damage  inflicted  u|>on  him  by  a  tem|H>r:uy  injunction  illegally  and 
wrongfully  granted.  1 1".  'hiring  the  time  before-  the  hearing,  anyone  in  the 
whole  wide  world  is  known  or  is  supjxKcd  t<>  be  guilty  of  a  violation  <»f  any 
part  of  any  clause  of  any  section  of  an  injunction,  he  may  In*  summarily 
arrested,  either  then  or  later,  and  put  U[K>II  trial.  1 'jv>n  such  trial  he  may 
insist  upon  none  of  the  riL,rl)N  guaranteed  t-«  him  a>*  a  dti/en  of  the  I 'nitrd 
States.  A  trial  by  jury  is  denied  to  him.  and  the  judge  pa-srx  sentence 


326  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

upon  the  sole  ground  of  whether  or  not  the  preliminary  injunction,  issued 
without  a  hearing,  has  been  disobeyed.  The  constitutional  guarantees  of 
liberty  and  property  are  denied  and  nullified  by  this  judicial  process.  The 
court,  after  hearing  the  case  in  its  'own  way,  decides  in  its  own  way.  The 
man  is  condemned  to  pay  such  fine  or  to  suffer  and  undergo  such  punish- 
ment as  the  court  in  its  supposed  wisdom  may  determine.  In  a  civil  action 
the  amount  recovered  should  not  be  greater  than  the  proved  damages,  but 
by  injunction  a  man  who*  commits  precisely  the  same  offense  for  which  civil 
action  is  brought,  is  punishable  by  fineor  imprisonment  according  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  court.  In  a  criminal  action  the  law  specifies  a  maximum,  pun- 
ishment that  may  be  inflicted,  but  if  the  same  offense  is  committed  in  viola- 
tion of  a  temporary  injunction,  issued  without  a  hearing,  or  without  per- 
sonal service,  the  punishment  may  be  whatever  the  judge  decrees,  however 
much  in  excess  of  the  maximum  punishment  fixed  by  the  law  of  the  state  or 
the  nation.  From  this  decision  of  the  judge  there  is  no  appeal,  and  even 
if  an  appeal  is  taken  upon  the  question  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  issu- 
ing the  injunction,  it  is  possible  that  the  active  men  of  the  union  may  lie  in 
jail  during  the  appeal.  In_many  cases,  however,  the  striking  workingmen 
are  not  in  possession  of  sufficient  funds  to  take  an  appeal,  and  generally  the 
injury  inflicted  upon  the  defendants  and  those  they  represent  is  irreparable, 
even  if  the  temporary  injunction  is  eventually  set  aside. 

It  would  naturally  be  supposed  that  the  courts  would  exercise  this  ex- 
traordinary power  of  injunction  in  a  conservative  manner  and  with  the  most 
scrupulous  care,  but  this  has  not  been  the  case.  Injunctions  in  labor  dis- 
putes have  been  granted  by  judges  in  chambers,  without  notice  and  without 
a  hearing  of  the  parties  against  whom  they  are  issued ;  or  they  have  simply 
been  written  out  by  some  clerk  of  the  court  in  the  absence  at  the  judge. 
Such  an  injunction  thrown  out  upon  the  spur  of  the  moment  may  restrain 
the  union  or  its  members  from,  giving  food  or  money  to  strikers,  forbid 
peaceful  picketing,  or  prohibit  other  actions  equally  lawful.  Under  this 
injunction  persons  or  parties  who  might  be  punished  civilly  are  made  crim- 
inally liable  for  offenses  or  for  actions  which  are  not  offenses  at  all. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  327 

One  of  the  worst  features  of  the  injunction  in  labor  disputes  is  that  the 
court  enjoins  not  only  civil  but  criminal  acts,  and  thus  deprives  the  work- 
ingman  of  his  constitutional  guarantee  of  trial  by  jury  for  such  offenses. 
For  centuries  Anglo-Saxons  have  struggled  incessantly  for  the  right  of 
trial  by  jury  in  criminal  cases,  and  this  right  has  been  specifically  guaranteed 
by  the  English  Bill  of  Rights,  by  the  charters  of  the  various  colonies  and  by 
the  constitutions  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several  states.  "In  all 
criminal  prosecutions,"  says  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  "the  ac- 
cused shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial,  by  an  impartial  jury 
of  the  State  and  district  wherein  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed; 
which  district  shall  have  l)een  previously  ascertained  by  law — and  to  be  in- 
formed of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation  ;  to  be  confronted  with  the 
witnesses  against  him;  to  have  compulsory  process  for  obtaining  witnesses 
in  his  favor,  and  to  have  the  Assistance  of  Counsel  for  his  defense."  This 
constitutional  guarantee  has  been  swept  aside  by  the  courts.  The  apologists 
for  judicial  aggression  and  for  government  by  injunction  maintain  that  an 
att  may  be  an  attempt  to  effect  irreparable  injury  and  at  the  same  time  a 
criminal  offense,  and  that  in  case  of  doubt  an  injunction  may  always  issue. 
This,  however,  offers  no  solace  to  the  man  \\ho  is  hauled  up  before  an  om- 
nipotent federal  judge,  upon  an  alleged  criminal  offense,  and  is  severely 
punished  without  being  allowed  to  defend  himself  by  ordinary  constitutional 
methods.  The  action  of  the  courts  in  issuing  injunctions  in  criminal  cases 
in  contravention  of  what  had  always  lx?en  supposed  to  be  the  plain  and  evi- 
dent intention  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
has  been  sustained  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the  Debs  case, 
even  though  the  overwhelming  opinion  of  lawyers  and  laymen,  until  within 
the  last  ten  years,  had  been  that  in  such  cases  injunctions  could  not  apply. 

In  every  \\ay  and  in  every  direction  jx>ssible,  the  use  of  the  injunction 
has  IKXMI  extended  and  enlarged.  It  was  formerly  held  that  an  injunction 
could  only  IK*  used  to  protect  a  jxirticular  proj)erty  right  of  a  particular  |>er- 
son,  and  then  only  in  cases  in  which  that  right  was  clearly  and  obviously 


328  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

threatened.  The  courts  have  now  held  that  the  government  may  itself  en- 
join persons  in  order  to  protect  the  laws,  to  prevent  combinations  in  restraint 
of  trade  or  interstate  commerce,  or  to  protect  the  mails,  in  which  the  gov- 
ernment is  said  to  have  a  property  right.  This  process  has  also  been  ex- 
tended by  the  "blanket"  injunction.  In  this  case,  besides  certain  specified 
persons,  the  injunction  is  addressed  to  "all  other  persons  whatsoever,  who 
are  not  named  herein,  from  and  after  the  time  when  they  shall  severally  have 
knowledge  of  such  order."  It  was  not,  of  course,  possible  to  serve  a  notice 
of  this  injunction  upon  all  against  whom  it  was  directed,  since  it  apparently 
included  the  inhabitants  of  Senegambia,  Cochin-China,  and,  possibly,  the 
inhabitants  of  the  moon.  The  picturesque  term  "government  by  injunction/' 
became  almost  literally  true.  The  order  of  the  court  in  the  Debs  case  sup- 
planted all  laws  and  all  constitutional  rights  and  immunities  of  all  the  par- 
ties affected,  and  thus  each  and  every  inhabitant  of  the  United  States  was 
placed  in  jeopardy  of  his  liberty  and  property,  despite  anything  which  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  or  of  his  own  state  might  determine.  The 
process  of  injunction  has  gone  even  further,  and,  in  order  to  prevent  strikes 
it  has  been  used  to  pervert  the  evident  intent  and  purposes  of  laws  not  di- 
rected against  labor  organizations.  By  the  Anti-trust  Law  of  1890,  "any 
contract,  combination  in  the  form  of  trust  or  otherwise,  or  conspiracy  in  re- 
straint of  trade  or  commerce  among  the  several  states,"  is  declared  to  be 
illegal;  and  by  the  Inter-state  Commerce  Act  of  1887  railroads  as  well  as 
their  officers  and  employees  are  prohibited  from  refusing  to  perform  their 
services  as  common  carriers  or  from  refusing  the  cars  and  passengers  of 
other  railroads  and  of  other  companies.  By  this  combination  of  laws,  with 
a  judicious  admixture  of  judicial  interpretation,  a  strike  of  employees  be- 
comes a  conspiracy  against  inter-state  commerce,  and  therefore  in  violation 
of  the  law,  and  the  injunction  is  specifically  recommended  in  the  Anti-trust 
Law  as  a  means  of  securing  the  enforcement  of  the  law.  In  the  case  of 
the  Southern  California  Railroad  vs.  Rutherford,  thousands  of  men  were 
specifically  required  by  injunction  "  to  perform  all  of  their  regular  and  ac- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  329 

customed  duties"  while  they  remained  in  the  employment  of  the  company, 
and  when  strikes  have  been  contemplated,  injunctions  have  been  granted  to 
prevent  the  leaders  from  issuing  the  strike  order  or  doing  anything  else 
which  might  be  necessary  to  inaugurate  the  strike  or  to  carry  it  to  a  success- 
ful conclusion. 

In  speaking  of  the  application  of  the  injunction  to  labor  disputes,  Mr. 
F.  J.  Stimson  states  that  "the  objections  arc  three: 

"i.  This  course  of  things  does  away  with  the  criminal  law  and  its  safe- 
guards of  indictment,  proof  by  witnesses,  jury  trial,  and  a  fixed  and  uni- 
form punishment.  Most  of  these  offenses  might  well  have  l>cen  the  subject 
of  criminal  prosecution ;  and  the  bill  of  rights  of  our  constitution  says  that 
in  all  criminal  prosecutions  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a  speedy  and 
public  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  State,  and  district  wherein  the  crime 
shall  have  been  committed:  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the 
accusation;  to  be  confronted  with  the  witnesses  against  him;  to  have  com- 
pulsory process  of  obtaining  witnesses  in  his  favor,  and  to  have  the  assist- 
ance of  counsel  for  his  defense. 

"2.  It  makes  the  courts  no  longer  a  judicial,  but  a  part  (and  it  bids  fair 
to  lx.«a  most  important  part)  of  the  executive  branch  of  Government.  More 
briefly  and  picturesquely:  the  Federal  courts  may  thus  gn>\\  int<>  mere 
Star-chambers  and  run  the  country. 

"3.  It  tends  to  make  our  judiciary  either  tyrannical  or  contemptible. 
If  we  do  not  fall  under  a  tyranny  such  as  might  have  existed  in  t'le  Kngl;t ud 
of  Charles  the  First  or  such  as  does  exist  in  the  S<»nth  \mcrica  oi  to-day. 
we  shall  fall  into  the  almost  worse  plight  of  finding  an  injunction  of  out- 
highest  courts  a  mere  bnttcin  ftilmcn — an  empty  threat,  a  jr-t  and  a  by- 
word; so  that  through  their  own  contempt  process  the  court  >  themselves  will 
be  brought  into  contempt." 

The  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  of  the  citi/en*  oi  the  I  nited 
States  depend  uj>on  the  jjcrmanent  serration  of  the  ]*>\\ci^  oi  the  executive, 
legislative,  and  judicial  branches  of  the  government.  It'  the  executive  is  to 


330  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

grow  at  the  expense  of  the  legislative  or  the  latter  at  the  expense  of  the. 
judiciary,  or  if  the  judiciary  is  to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  both  execu- 
tive and  legislative  branches  of  the  government,  as  well  as  upon  those  of 
the  people,  the  liberties  of  the  citizens  will  be  vitally  and  seriously  endan- 
gered. There  have  been  times  of  great  stress  and  peril  when  the  courts 
have  been  obliged  to  take,  or  have  been  granted,  extraordinary  powers. 
During  the  fourteenth  century  in  the  reign  of  Richard  the  Second  of  Eng- 
land, the  turmoil  of  civil  wars  and  the  aggressions  of  the  great  barons  made 
the  decision  of  common  law  judges  nugatory  and  unenforceable,  and  the 
king  was  therefore  obliged  to  grant  extraordinary  judicial  powers  to  the 
chancellor.  The  court  of  Star  Chamber  itself  was  originally  intended  to 
correct  abuses  and  violations  of  the  law,  but  when  this  tribunal  unduly  ex- 
tended its  powers  to  the  detriment  of  the  people,  it  evoked  a  revolt  and  con- 
tributed finally  to  the  rebellion  against  King  Charles  the  First  and  to  his  ex- 
ecution. The  extension  of  the  injunction  in  recent  years,  with  its  abroga- 
tion of  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  citizen,  is  a  similar  instance  of  en- 
croachment on  the  part  of  the  judiciary,  an  encroachment,  moreover,  during 
times  when  there  is  no  civil  war  and  no  internal  disturbance. 

In  my  judgment  this  extension  of  the  use  of  the  injunction  is  the  most 
disturbing  factor  in  our  national  life,  the  darkest  cloud  upon  our  horizon. 
The  elements  who  favor  the  injunction  as  it  is  now  used  are,  either  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously,  inimical  to  true  democracy  and  are  apparently 
like  the  adherents  of  Hamilton  in  the  early  days  of  the  Republic,  in  favor 
of  what  is  practically  a  monarchical,  even  a  despotic  government,  and  in 
favor  of  the  limitation  and  restriction  of  the  rights  of  the  people.  Those 
who,  like  Justice  Brewer,  advocate  the  still  further  use  of  this  formidable 
weapon,  arc  undermining  the  faith  of  the  people  in  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws  of  the  land  and  are  destroying  the  confidence  of  the  working  classes 
in  the  impartiality  of  the  courts. 

The  final  argument  of  apologists  for  judicial  aggression  and  the  un- 
limited extension  of  the  injunction  is  their  faith  in  the  wisdom  and  honor 
of  judges.  "In  the  last  resort,"  they  say,  "our  rights,  liberties,  and  immu- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  331 

nities  are  safe  in  the  hands  of  judges  selected  for  their  probity  and  integrity 
as  well  as  for  their  profound  knowledge  of  men  and  things."  This  argu- 
ment, however,  is  not  conclusive  even  if  true.  The  tyranny  of  the  l>est  of 
men  is  bad,  and  the  liberties  of  the  American  j>eople  should  ever  l>e  in  their 
own  keeping  and  never  entrusted  to  the  wisdom  and  moderation  of  even  the 
most  upright  judge.  Personally,  I  believe,  with  most  trade  unionists,  that 
the  judges  of  the  Federal  and  State  courts  are  men  of  honor,  in  this  respect 
equal  or  sujx?rior  to  the  average  of  men.  There  is,  however,  a  bias  in  every 
one,  especially  in  close  corporations  of  individuals  selected  from  a  particular 
group  in  society  and  usually  for  a  long  or  for  a  life  tenure  of  office.  As 
we  proceed  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  courts,  from  short  tenure  judges 
to  long  tenure  judges,  from  judges  by  election  to  judges  by  appointment, 
we  find  a  constantly  increasing  prejudice  against  working-men  and  a  con- 
stantly lessening  ability  to  understand  the  fundamental  principles  of  trade 
unionism.  The  fact,  also,  that  many  judges  of  superior  courts  have  in  the 
past  been  servants  of  the  great  corporations  and  intend  in  the  future  to  re- 
turn to  that  service,  while  not  necessarily  affecting  their  honor,  undoubt- 
edly tends  to  create  an  unconscious  bias. 

While  I  have  no  desire  to  impugn  the  honor  of  the  judges  or  their  pro- 
found knowledge  of  the  law,  the  practical  wisdom  of  the  judiciary,  as  mani- 
fested by  many  recent  decisions,  seems  to  me  to  l>c  at  least  open  to  question. 
The  judicial  attitude  of  some  of  the  eminent  judges  of  our  federal  courts 
may  Ix;  indicated  by  their  demeanor  towards  workingmen  hn 'tight  before 
them  in  alleged  contempt  of  court.  Thus,  the  eminent  District  Judge.  John 
J.  Jackson,  of  the  Southern  District  of  West  Virginia,  stated  to  the  defend- 
ant miners  that  they  and  other  officers  of  trade  unions  were  "a  professional 
set  of  agitators"  and  "vampires  that  fattened  on  the  honest  lab»r  <>|  the  coal 
miners."  It  is  not  so  much  what  the  judges  say  as  \\hat  they  do  that  arouses 
the  antagonism  of  workingmen.  but  the  manner  in  which  Judge  Jackson 
spoke  is  at  Ica.st  an  index  of  the  attitude  of  mind  in  \\hich  many  injunctions 
have  l)ccn  issued. 


332  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

There  is  no  labor  leader  who  has  not  had  a  bitter  experience  with  these 
injunctions.  In  what  was  probably  the  first  injunction  ever  issued  in  a 
labor  dispute,  the  injunction  against  the  Cigar  Makers  during  their  strike 
at  Binghamton,  N.  Y.,  the  strikers  and  all  others  acting  for  them  or  in  their 
behalf  were  enjoined  by  the  court  not  only  from  being  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
factory,  but  also  from  being  upon  the  street  in  which  the  factory  stood. 
while  the  court  further  enjoined  the  union  from  paying  money  or  giving 
support  to  non-union  workmen.  Even  though  this  injunction  was  ap- 
pealed and  subsequently  set  aside,  the  damage  done  to  the  union  through 
the  unwisdom  of  the  judges  was  irreparable,  and  no  advantage  was  gained 
by  the  appeal.  In  many  cases  unions  have  been  enjoined  from  picketing, 
from  giving  money  or  support  to  strikers,  and  from  doing  any  one  of  the 
many  legal  acts  which  are  absolutely  essential  to  the  gaining  of  a  strike  or 
to  resistance  to  a  lockout.  In  the  case  of  the  injunction  against  the  Amal- 
gamated Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers,  the  strikers  were  enjoined 
even  from  peaceable  talk  with  workers,  while  in  the  case  of  an  injunction 
against  the  International  Typographical  Union,  which  was  at  that  time  in 
conflict  with  the  Buffalo  Express,  the  members  of  the  union  were  enjoined 
from  boycotting  and  were  even  refused  the  right  to  discuss  or  talk  about 
the  paper  in  any  way  that  might  affect  it  or  its  business.  The  Industrial 
Commission  received  a  large  amount  of  testimony  showing  clearly  the  folly 
of  many  injunctions,  some  of  which  were  set  aside  and  some  upheld,  al- 
though all  of  them  worked  irreparable  injury  to  the  working-men  and 
brought  the  judiciary  into  disrespect  and  contempt. 

In  order  to  avoid  even  the  semblance  of  misrepresenting  the  position  of 
the  judges  or  misstating  the  terms  of  injunctions,  I  prefer,  rather  than  give 
my  own  account  of  the  injunction  issued  against  strikers,  to  quote  from  a 
pamphlet  carefully  prepared  by  five  members  of  the  New  York  Bar  and  is- 
sued during  the  year  1900  by  the  Social  Reform  Club  of  that  city.  "In 
the  case  of  the  Sun  Printing  and  Publishing  Company  versus  Delaney  and 
others,  in  December,  1899,"  says  the  pamphlet,  "the  Supreme  Court  of  New 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  333 

York,  among  other  tilings,  enjoined  the  defendants  from  the  exercise  of 
their  right  to  give  the  public  their  side  of  the  controversy  with  the  Sun,  as 
an  argument  against  advertising  in  a  paper  which  they  claimed  had  treated 
them  unjustly.  It  also  forbade  tiieni  from  attempting  to  persuade  news 
dealers  from  selling  the  paper,  and  finally  wound  up  witli  a  sweeping  re- 
straint 'from  in  any  other  manner  or  by  any  other  means  interfering  with 
the  property,  property  rights  or  business  of  the  plaintiff.'  It  should  Ixi 
added  that  on  appeal  the  Appellate  Division  struck  out  these  commands. 
but  they  were  so  plainly  subversive  of  fundamental  rights  that  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  they  could  have  been  granted  in  the  first  instance. 

"In  still  another  case  last  year  the  'Wheeling  Railway  Company  versus 
John  Smith  and  others'  (so  runs  the  title  of  the  action,  without  naming  the 
others)  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court.  West  Virginia,  two  men  not 
parties  to  the  action  nor  found  to  be  agents  of  'John  Smith  and  others'  who- 
ever they  may  have  l>een,  were  punished  for  contempt  of  court  for,  among 
other  things,  'reviling'  and  'cursing'  the  Court:5 — not  at  all.  but  for  'reviling' 
and  'cursing'  employees  of  the  railroad  company.  It  these  men  had  not 
actually  served  out  an  imprisonment  in  jail  for  thirty  days  as  a  punishment 
for  contempt  of  corporation,  it  might  be  thought  yoiir  committee  had  taken 
this  example  from  opera  houffe.  The  legality  of  this  punishment  was  nc\er 
passed  on  by  the  Supreme  Court,  for  the  reason,  as  your  committee  under 
stand,  that  the  parties  were  unable  to  l>ear  the  expense  of  taking  it  there, 
and  so  served  their  term  in  jail. 

"During  the  final  drafting  of  our  report  a  tuii|x>rary  injunction  ha- 
been  granted  by  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  NYw  York  (  ity.  .  . 
This  injunction  forbids  the  defendants  (certain  members  ..t  the  (  igar 
Makers'  I'nion)  even  from  approaching  their  former  cmplours  f..r  tin- 
laudable  purpose  of  reaching  an  amicable  result.  It  forbid-  than  irom 
making  their  case  known  to  the  public,  if  the  tendency  of  thai  is  to  \<-\  the 
plaintiffs  or  make  them  uneasy.  It  forbids  them  from  trying,  in  a  perfectly 
peaceful  way,  in  any  place  in  the  city,  c\on  in  the  privacy  "t  a  man  .-,  u\\n 


334  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

home,  to  persuade  a  new  employee  that  justice  is  on  their  side  and  that  he 
ought  to  sympathize  with  them  sufficiently  not  to  work  for  unjust  em- 
ployers ;  and  finally  it  forbids  the  union  from  paying  money  to  the  strikers 
to  support  their  families  during  the  strike." 

During  the  last  decade  attempts  have  been  made  by  organized  labor 
to  secure  by  legislative  action  or  otherwise  the  limitation  of  the  use  of  in- 
junctions to  their  proper  sphere.  In  other  words,  the  trade  unions  of  the 
country  are  endeavoring  to  protect  the  right  of  jury  trials  in  labor  disputes, 
which  right  is  hazarded  by  the  aggressions  of  the  judiciary.  The  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  has  petitioned  Congress  and  the  legislatures  of 
the  various  states  for  laws  restraining  the  power  of  the  courts  in  the  issue 
of  injunctions,  and  the  railway  brotherhoods  have  also  been  active  in  this 
direction.  The  Hoar-Grosvenor  Bill  introduced  into  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  reported  from  the  Judiciary  Committee  attempts  to  define 
conspiracy  and  to  take  away  the  power  of  the  courts  to  issue  injunctions  in 
the  case  of  a  combination  or  agreement  of  persons  to  do  anything  in  fur- 
therance of  a  labor  dispute.  The  bill  provides :  "That  no  agreement,  com- 
bination or  contract  by  or  between  two  or  more  persons  to  do  or  procure  to 
be  done,  or  not  to  do  or  procure  not  to  be  done,  any  act  in  contemplation 
or  furtherance  of  any  trade  dispute  between  employers  and  employees  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  or  in  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  or  be- 
tween employers  and  employees  who  may  be  engaged  in  trade  or  commerce 
between  the  several  States,  or  between  any  Territory  and  another,  or  be- 
tween any  Territory  or  Territories  and  any  State  or  States  or  the  District  of 
Columbia,  or  with  foreign  nations,  or  between  the  District  of  Columbia  and 
any  State  or  States  or  foreign  nations  shall  be  deemed  criminal,  nor  shall 
those  engaged  therein  be  indictable  or  otherwise  punishable  for  the  crime  of 
conspiracy,  if  such  act  committed  by  one  person  would  not  be  punishable 
as  a  crime,  nor  shall  such  agreement,  combination,  or  contract  be  considered 
as  in  restraint  of  trade  or  commerce,  nor  shall  any  restraining  order  or  in- 
junction be  issued  with  relation  thereto.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  exempt 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  335 

from  punishment,  otherwise  than  as  herein  excepted  any  persons  guilty 
of  conspiracy,  for  which  punishment  is  now  provided  by  any  Act  of  Con- 
gress, but  such  Act  of  Congress  shall,  as  to  the  agreements,  combinations 
and  contracts  hereinbefore  referred  to,  be  construed  as  if  this  act  were 
therein  contained." 

Members  of  trade  unions  and  all  other  citizens  should  agitate  cease- 
lessly against  the  abomination  of  the  injunction.  Legislators  and  judges 
must  l>e  constantly  and  always  brought  to  a  realizing  sense  of  the  deep  in- 
iquity of  the  denial  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  It  is  possible  that  laws 
passed  by  the  state  or  national  governments  to  repel  judicial  aggression  will 
be  set  aside  by  the  courts  as  an  infringement  or  impairment  of  their  sup- 
posed rights.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  state  of  West  Virginia  declared 
unconstitutional  the  law  of  that  state,  passed  in  1898,  limiting  the  exercise 
of  the  injunction,  with  the  statement  that  the  courts  were  coordinate  with 
the  legislature  itself,  and  that  therefore  the  legislature  had  no  right  to  re- 
strain the  powers  of  the  judiciary,  or  to  prevent  the  courts  from  protecting 
themselves  by  proceedings  in  contempt. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  question  of  the  legality  of  a  law  restricting  the 
indiscriminate  use  of  injunctions  should  l>c  inquired  into,  and  if  it  is  scon  or 
contemplated  that  such  a  law  will  not  l>e  upheld  by  the  courts,  then  other 
methods  should  l>c  used.  The  courts  themselves  should  Ix1  constantly  ap- 
l*-nlcd  to  for  relief  from  their  own  oppression.  As  a  matter  of  history  the 
injunction,  \\hich  is  a  procedure  in  cqiiitv.  was  originally  intended  to  pro 
k-ct  citizens  from  the  verv  sort  of  wrongs  which  the  injunction  as  used  in 
lalxir  disputes  actually  causes.  The  complexion  and  convictions  of  courts 
change,  and  |>crhaps  equity  will  give  to  the  workingman  what  equity  has 
taken  away.  Perhaps,  through  the  agitation  of  the  wage  earners  and 
through  the  willingness  of  men  to  go  to  jail  in  this  i^ood  cause,  the  courts 
themselves  \\ill  come  to  an  understanding  of  the  manner  in  \\hich  they  have 
dejKirted  from  their  own  precedents  and  invaded  the  lilxrrlics  of  the  people. 
Personally.  I  share  with  the  vast  majority  of  trade  unionists  a  respect  for 
the  judiciary,  which  even  a  decade  of  wrong-minded,  tortuous.  ;md  illogical 


336  ORGANIZED   LABOR 

decisions  cannot  entirely  destroy.  If,  however,  there  is  no  remedy  from 
present  judges,  then  we  must  look  to  reform  from  an  amendment  to  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  relegating  the  judiciary  to  its  proper  place, 
as  a  law-interpreting  and  not  as  a  law-making  body,  or  else,  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  judges  of  character  and  knowledge,  we  must  gradually  change  the 
trend  of  decisions  by  altering  the  calibre  of  the  men  appointed.  I  do  not 
approve  of  stocking  the  Supreme  Court  or  of  doing  anything  to  impair  the 
independence  or  lessen  the  legitimate  control  of  that  body,  but  it  does  seem 
to  me  that  the  Executive,  in  appointing  judges,  should  bear  in  mind  that  the 
legislature  needs  as  much  protection  from  the  judiciary  as  the  judiciary 
from  the  legislature. 

As  to  the  attitude  of  trade  unionists,  I  believe,  in  the  first  place,  in 
ceaseless  agitation  for  a  redress  of  this  intolerable  grievance.  Moreover, 
when  an  injunction  whether  temporary  or  permanent,  forbids  the  doing 
of  a  thing  which  is  lawful,  I  believe  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  patriotic  and 
law-abiding  citizens  to  resist,  or  at  least  to  disregard,  the  injunction.  It 
is  better  that  half  the  workingmen  of  the  country  remain  constantly  in  jail 
than  that  trial  by  jury  and  other  inalienable  and  constitutional  rights  of  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  be  abridged,  impaired,  or  nullified  by  injunc- 
tions of  the  courts. 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII 
THE  STRIKE  VERSUS  COMPULSORY  ARBITRATION 

Recent  Strikes  of  Greater  Magnitude.  The  Interests  of  the  Public.  Compulsory 
Arbitration  Proposed  as  a  Remedy.  Compulsory  vs.  Voluntary  Arbitration.  Com- 
pulsory Arbitration  Means  State  Control?  Corrupt  vs.  Honest  Government.  Contrast 
between  Xc\v  Zealand  and  the  United  States  of  America.  Compulsory  Arbitration  in 
New  Zealand.  Conciliation  Board  and  Arbitration  Court.  Methods  of  Procedure. 
The  Recognition  of  the  Unions.  Preferential  Treatment  of  Unionists.  Compulsory 
Arbitration  and  Rising  Wages.  Why  Compulsory  Arbitration  can  not  be  Generally 
Adopted  in  the  United  States.  Possible  K Deceptions. 

AS  long"  as  employers  were  many  and  unions  of  employees  few.  as 
long  as  strikes  were  carried  on  in  a  small  way  and  with  purely  local 
effect,  the  theory  prevailed  that  a  strike  was  a  matter  of  importance  to  the 
contestants  only.  It  was  believed  that  employers  were  right  to  buy  lal>or 
as  cheaply  as  possible  and  employees  were  right  to  sell  their  labor  as  dearly 
as  possible.  The  haggling  over  the  price  of  lalx>r  might  cause  a  temporary 
cessation  of  work,  just  as  a  merchant  and  his  customer  might  sj>end  time 
in  haggling  over  the  price  of  a  coat  or  a  spade.  The  best  interests  of  the 
community,  it  was  assumed,  would  he  subserved  by  |>crmitling  employer 
and  employee  to  fight  the  matter  out  to  their  own  satisfaction. 

With  the  growth  of  large  lalx>r  unions,  however,  and  \\ith  die  incre.i-e 
in  the  resources  of  individual  employers  and  groups  of  employers,  the  inter 
cst  of  the  public  in  these  industrial  conflicts  became  more   vital,      h    was 
soon  felt  that  in  many  strikes  the  public  suffered  more  acuti-ly  than  cither 
contestant.      For  instance,  during  the  recent  coal  strike  both  operators  and 
miners  commanded  sufficient  resources  to  enable  them  to  h<>ld  out  almost 
indefinitely,  while  the  public   would   have  suffered   irreparable  :njnrv  and 
untold  hardship,  had  the  strike  lasted  but  two  or  three  month  ^  lon-jci 
strike  of  a  month's  duration   UJHHI  all   the  railroads  ccnterint;   in   C  hicago 


333  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

would  not,  perhaps,  affect  the  bonds  and  stocks  of  the  corporations  more 
seriously  than  a  complete  failure  of  the  crops,  and  the  workmen  themselves 
could  bear  the  strain  quite  easily.  Long  before  the  month  had  elapsed, 
however,  the  country  would  be  in  the  throes  of  a  frighful  crisis,  and  steps 
would  probably  be  taken  by  the  state  or  national  government  to  put  an  end 
to  a  contest  in  which  the  interest  of  the  public  was  not  only  as  great  as,  but 
infinitely  greater  than,  that  of  either  combatant. 

The  only  infallible  remedy  against  strikes  and  lockouts  is  sometimes 
held  to  be  the  adoption  of  compulsory  arbitration.  By  this  is  meant  an  ob- 
ligation imposed  upon  employers  and  employees  to  submit  their  differences 
to  an  official  tribunal  and  abide  by  its  decision.  There  are,  of  course,  other 
ways  of  avoiding  strikes,  but  no  other  method,  it  is  held,  can  be  considered 
a  specific.  Conciliation  or  an  attempt  to  avoid  strikes  by'conferences  be- 
tween the  two  parties,  with  or  without  the  intervention  of  a  third,  is  fre- 
quently successful  in  obviating  misunderstandings  and  preventing  strikes. 
The  same  is  true  of  voluntary  arbitration,  or  the  submission  of  the  matter  in 
dispute  to  an  impartial  tribunal  by  both  parties  to  the  controversy. 

Voluntary  arbitration  is  entirely  different  in  its  effects  from  compul- 
sory arbitration.  In  many  cases  of  actual  industrial  conflict  the  weaker 
party  to  a  controversy  is  inclined  to  submit  the  matter  to  arbitration,  while 
the  stronger  party  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  it  and  says  "there  is  noth- 
ing to  arbitrate."  Consequently,  voluntary  arbitration,  while  in  many  cases 
a  vast  improvement  over  striking,  and  preferable  to  it,  is  often  neither  more 
nor  less  than  the  victory  of  the  stronger  over  the  weaker  party  to  the  con- 
test; that  is  to  say,  the  decision  is  frequently  given  to  the  side  that  would 
have  won,  and  in  proportion  to  what  it  would  have  won,  had  the  issue  not 
been  submitted  to  arbitration,  but  been  fought  to  the  end  through  a  strike  or 
a  lockout.  Of  course,  there  are  many  instances  of  voluntary  arbitration 
in  which  a  decision  has  been  reached  without  reference  to,  and  uninfluenced 
by,  either  the  numerical  or  the  financial  strength  of  the  contestants ;  although; 
generally  speaking,  what  is  called  voluntary  arbitration  is  resorted  to  only 
when  one  side  is  strong  enough  to  compel  the  other  to  submit  to  it,  or  when 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  339 

public  sentiment  becomes  so  thoroughly  aroused  that  arbitration  is  prac- 
tically forced  upon  the  belligerents.  Compulsory  arbitration,  on  the  other 
hand,  introduces  a  new  element — the  power  of  the  State.  It  is  binding 
upon  both  parties  irrespective  of  their  comparative  strength,  and  the  de- 
cision or  award  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  strength  or  weakness  of  the 
employees,  but  with  the  wishes  and  purposes  of  the  State,  which  compels  the 
arbitration.  Compulsory  arbitration  is,  therefore,  apart  from  all  other 
questions,  largely  a  matter  of  the  strength,  stability,  wisdom,  impartiality, 
and  honesty  of  the  government ;  and  the  experience  of  honest  governments 
with  compulsory  arbitration  cannot  be  conclusively  cited  for  countries  with 
corrupt  governments  or  rice  versa. 

In  the  present  chapter  it  is  proposed  to  dcscril>e  the  workings  of  the 
compulsory  arbitration  laws  passed  in  1894  in  the  Australasian  Colony  of 
New  Zealand  and  subsequently  adopted  by  Xew  South  Wales  and  Western 
Australia.  The  author  of  the  Xew  Zealand  law  was  the  Honorable  Wil- 
liam Peml>er  Reeves,  Minister  of  Labor,  and  the  law  has  IXXMI  one  of  the 
most  widely  discussed  measures  ever  passed  by  any  legislature  or  Parlia- 
ment. 

The  agitation  in  Xew  Zealand  for  some  form  of  arbitration  law  dates 
from  i.Xo.0.  In  that  year  there  occurred  the  Maritime  Strike,  a  lalxtr  con- 
flict which  spread  sympathetically  from  the  shipping  world  to  all  forms  of 
industry  in  Australasia  and  practically  divided  the  society  of  the  continent 
into  two  hostile  camps.  In  order  to  obviate  experiences  of  this  sort  in  the 
future,  the  Xew  Zealand  Minister  of  LaN>r  made  a  special  study  ol  efforts 
to  avoid  strikes  in  Kngland,  I1" ranee,  (iermany,  and  the  I'nited  States,  and 
finally  came  to  the  conclusion  that  neither  conciliation  nor  voluntary  arbi- 
tration would  suffice,  but  that  the  only  practicable  remedy  for  his  country 
was  compulsory  arbitration.  Attempts  to  secure  the  passage  ot  a  compul- 
sory arbitration  law  failed  in  iN<jj  and  iS<^,  but  were  successtul  in  iHcj.j, 
when  a  bill  providing  for  compulsory  arbitration  passed  the  colonial  Par- 
liament. 

The  law  as  passe*  1  in   i^o.j.  and  as  Mib-euuently  amended,  applies  only 


340  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

to  those  industries  wherein  trade  unions  are  established,  but  permits  a  trade 
union  to  be  formed  in  any  industry  by  the  action  of  any  seven  workmen. 
The  law  does  not  in  any  way  hinder  conciliation  or  prevent  voluntary  ar- 
bitration, and  only  after  conciliation  has  been  exhausted  is  resort  had  to 
compulsory  arbitration.  The  obligation  to  arbitrate,  however,  is  final  and 
conclusive  whenever  the  two  parties  do  not  come  to  an  agreement  volun- 
tarily, and  a  breach  of  the  award  may,  in  the  discretion  of  the  Arbitration 
Court,  be  visited  by  fine  or  imprisonment. 

The  method  of  procedure  in  New  Zealand  is  as  follows :  there  is  in 
each  of  the  seven  districts  into  which  the  colony  is  divided  a  Board  of  Con- 
ciliation composed  of  from  four  to  six  men  chosen  by  the  unions  and  by  the 
associations  of  employers,  together  with  a  chairman  elected  by  all,  who  is 
usually  an  outsider  and  casts  the  deciding  vote.  There  is  only  one  Court 
of  Arbitration  for  the  country,  this  court  consisting  of  three  persons  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor  for  three  years.  Of  these  three  members  one  is 
a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  others,  nominees  of  the  unions  and 
of  the  employers  respectively.  In  cases  of  unusual  difficulty,  or  requiring 
exact  and  technical  knowledge,  two  experts  may  be  chosen,  one  from  each 
side.  From  the  Board  of  Conciliation  an  appeal  always  lies  to  the  Court 
of  Arbitration,  but  the  action  taken  by  the  Court  of  Arbitration  is  final  and 
without  appeal.  "No  award  or  proceeeding  of  the  court/'  says  the  act, 
"shall  be  liable  to  be  challenged,  appealed  against,  reviewed,  quashed,  or 
called  in  question  by  any  Court  of  Judicature  on  any  account  whatsoever." 

Neither  the  Board  of  Conciliation  nor  the  Court  of  Arbitration  may 
take  the  initiative  in  any  dispute  between  employers  and  employees,  but 
each  acts  only  when  called  upon  by  one  or  the  other  of  the  parties.  This, 
however,  does  not  detract  from  its  powers,  since  any  single  aggrieved  em- 
ployee may  bring  the  matter  in  controversy  before  the  Board  and  ultimately 
before  the  Court  and  secure  an  award.  These  awards,  moreover,  are  made 
binding  not  only  upon  the  particular  employer  or  association  of  employers 
involved,  but  also  upon  all  employers  in  the  same  district  or  even  in  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  341 

entire  colony.     The  court  thus  establishes  uniform  rules  for  the  whole  in- 
dustry for  the  period  of  one,  t\vo,  or  three  years. 

The  scope  of  the  Court  of  Arbitration  in  making  such  general  or  com- 
mon rules  is  not  limited.  Since  1894  the  act,  which  was  originally  intended 
chiefly  to  prevent  strikes,  has  been  extended  continually  in  its  scope  and 
jurisdiction,  until  it  is  now  used  as  a  means  of  establishing  minimum  rates 
of  wages,  maximum  number  of  hours,  and  such  general  conditions  of  labor 
as  the  relations  of  union  to  non-union  men,  the  use  of  safety  appliances, 
the  prohibition  or  permission  of  Sunday  work,  and  regulations  for  the  health 
of  workers.  The  court,  according  to  the  act  as  amended,  is  allowed  to 
settle  all  disputes  about  industrial  matters,  by  which  are  meant  "all  matters 
affecting  or  relating  to  work  done  or  to  be  done  by  workers,  or  the  privi- 
leges, rights  and  duties  of  employers  or  workers  in  any  industry,  not  involv- 
ing questions  which  are  or  may  be  the  subject  of  proceedings  for  an  indict- 
able offense."  Besides  other  matters,  the  court  has  jurisdiction  over  wages, 
allowances  or  remuneration  of  workers;  piece  prices;  hours  of  employment ; 
sex,  age,  and  qualifications  of  workers;  modes,  terms  and  conditions 
of  employment;  employment  of  children  or  young  persons  or  of  any 
other  class  of  persons;  dismissal  or  refusal  to  employ  particular  j>cr- 
sons  or  classes  of  persons;  preference  of  union  over  non-union  men,  to- 
gether with  all  established  customs  or  usages  in  an  industry,  whether  in  the 
whole  colony  or  in  a  particular  district.  The  commission  thus  practically 
has  power  to  decide  all  questions  relating  to  the  wage-  contract  and  prac- 
tically to  legislate  for  existing  factories  as  well  as  for  those  to  be  established 
during  the  life  of  an  award. 

The  law  rot  only  prevents  strikes  or  lockouts  during  the  tune  o!  liie 
award,  but  prevents  recourse  to  such  measures  \\lien  made  lor  the  purpose 
of  escaping  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  No  man  may  discharge  his  em- 
ployees on  the  eve  of  their  ap|>eal  to  the  hoard  of  Conciliation,  and  a  strike 
may  not  be  called  for  a  similar  purpose.  There  is  no  <-«>mpulM«.n  upon  any 
workingman  to  join  a  union,  but  if  he  dues  join  he  may  leave  it  only  upon 
three  months'  notice.  One  of  the  most  interesting  phases  of  the  awards 


342  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

of  the  Court  is  that  where  the  ordinary  custom  of  the  trade  is  not  to  the 
contrary,  the  employer  is  obliged  to  grant  to  the  member  of  a  union  prefer- 
ence over  the  non-unionist  in  the  matter  of  employment,  provided  he  be 
equally  capable. 

The  effect  of  the  act  upon  workingmen  has  been  to  change  their 
status  and  practically  to  compel  the  incorporation  of  trade  unions.  The 
unions  are  given  corporate  rights  and  responsibilities,  including  the  right 
to  sue  and  the  liability  to  be  sued,  the  power  to  buy  or  lease  land  and  au- 
thority to  punish  defaulting  officers  or  members.  A  violation  may  result 
in  the  visitation  of  a  fine,  which  may  be  collected  against  the  union  or 
against  its  members  individually  in  the  same  manner  as  against  associations 
of  employers,  or  individual  members  of  such  associations. 

When  the  system  was  first  introduced  in  New  Zealand  it  was  antici- 
pated that  not  one  case  in  ten  would  be  taken  from  the  Board  of  Concilia- 
tion to  the  Court  of  Arbitration,  but  this  prediction  has  not  been  verified. 
On  the  contrary,  in  two-thirds  of  the  cases  an  appeal  has  been  taken  from 
the  Board  to  the  Court.  The  proceedings  of  the  Court  have  been  conducted. 
as  a  rule,  in  a  sensible,  rapid  and  untechnical  manner.  According  to  the  law, 
professional  attorneys  may  be  excluded  at  the  wish  of  either  party,  and  use- 
less or  frivolous  litigation  is  discouraged  and  may  be  summarily  dismissed 
and  visited  with  costs.  Most  of  the  costs  of  the  Court  are  defrayed  by  the 
State,  the  theory  being  that  it  is  better  to  encourage  useless  litigation  than 
to  prevent  the  poorer  members  of  society  from  securing  justice. 

While  the  cases  arising  under  this  law  were  at  first  few,  they  have 
rapidly  increased  within  the  last  four  or  five  years.  There  have  been,  on 
the  whole,  some  few  hundred  cases  before  the  Court,  most  of  which  have 
been  decided  in  favor  of  the  workingmen.  It  must,  of  course,  be  remem- 
bered that  during  practically  the  whole  of  this  period  New  Zealand  has  been 
progressing  industrially  and  has  been  enjoying  good  times,  and  the  success 
of  the  workingmen  before  the  Court  is  to  be  largely  attributed  to  this  fact. 
A  severer  test  of  the  act  will  be  made  during  periods  of  depression,  when  a 
larger  percentage  of  the  awards  of  the  Court  may  be  adverse  to  the  unions. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  343 

The  Compulsory  Arbitration  Law  of  Xe\v  Zealand  has  become  increas- 
ingly popular  with  workingmen.  At  first  wage  earners  were  somewhat 
lukewarm  in  their  attitude  toward  it.  but  with  each  year  it  has  gained  ever 
greater  favor  with  them.  The  employing  class  seems  to  be  somewhat  di- 
vided. A  number  of  them  take  a  stand  similar  to  that  taken  bv  employers 
in  this  country  toward  the  trade  agreement.  There  are  many  Xcw  Zealand 
employers  who  resent  any  retrenchment  or  limitation  of  their  right  to  man- 
age their  own  business  as  they  see  fit  or  to  deal  with  their  own  employees 
as  they  desire.  As.  however,  the  award  in  any  particular  case  is  made  bind- 
ing upon  the  whole  district  and  in  some  cases  even  UJMMI  the  whole  colony, 
the  employer  enjoys  the  same  1>eneiit  as  under  the  trade  agreement,  namely, 
that  of  a  certainty  that  no  other  employer  will  undercut  him  or  secure  an 
advantage  over  him  in  the  matter  of  wages.  He  has  .still  another  advan- 
tage similar  to  that  given  by  the  trade  agreement,  namely  the  certainty  ot" 
no  strike  during  the  i>eriod  of  the  a\\ard.  The  result  has  been  that  em- 
ployers have  l>ccome  more  and  more  friendly  to  the  act.  and  at  the  present 
lime,  there  appears  to  l>e  no  considerable  class  or  section  of  the  Xew  Zea- 
land population  which  is  adverse  or  hostile.  In  fact,  the  adoption  of  simi- 
lar acts  by  the  Parliaments  of  Xew  South  Wales  and  Western  Australia 
have  strengthened  the  hold  of  compulsory  arbitration  UJXMI  the  Xew  Zca- 
landers.  In  Xew  Zealand  and  during  the  i>criod  of  prosier ity  in  which  it 
has  been  in  operation,  the  Compulsory  Arbitration  Law  seems  to  ha\e 
licen  successful.  Knemies  of  the  bill  predicted  the  direst  evil  as  a 
result  of  its  enactment.  Capital,  they  said,  would  lca\c  the  omntr\.  cm 
ployment  l>ecomc  scarce,  and  wages  fall  as  soon  a-,  the  law  Urainc  operative, 
but  its  effect  has  l»een  the  direct  contrary.  The  nnnilK-r  <>f  men  employed 
in  Xew  Zealand  industries  has  increased,  wa^es  lia\c-  ii-cn.  h:isines> 
progresscd  and  become  more  prosj>erous  than  c\cr.  and  employers  ha\e 
Ixren  reassured  by  the  stability  of  wages  and  tin-  practically  l<->tal  absence 
oi  strikes  and  lockouts.  The  act  has  had  a  steadying  effect  up«.n  associa- 
tions both  of  employers  and  employees  and  ha.s  promoted  a  ix:accab!c  solu- 
tion of  manv  difficulties  outside  the  conrt  ir--.m.  The  classes  Ix-yond  the 


344  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

jurisdiction  of  the  act  have  clamored  for  the  intervention  of  the  court,  and 
both  sides  appear  to  have  been,  on  the  whole,  well  pleased  with  the  honesty 
and  efficiency  of  the  judges  and  the  expeditious  and  untechnical  methods  of 
procedure  adopted.  The  objection  usually  urged  that  you  cannot  by  force 
of  law  make  a  man  pay  more  wages  than  he  is  willing  to  pay  is  not  valid, 
since  the  Compulsory  Arbitration  Law  of  New  Zealand  does  not  compel 
a  man  to  continue  in  business,  but  merely  prohibits  his  paying  anything  less 
than  a  stipulated  wage  if  he  does  so  continue.  Equally  inapplicable  is  the 
argument  that  you  cannot  by  law  compel  a  man  to  work  against  his  will. 
The  New  Zealand  law  does  not  compel  a  man  to  work  any  more  than  it 
does  an  employer  to  continue  in  business,  but  merely  states  that  if  the  man 
does  work,  or  if  the  employer  does  contract  for  work,  it  shall  be  at  certain 
rates  and  under  certain  conditions. 

It  cannot,  however,  be  predicted  that  what  has  apparently  succeeded 
so  well  in  New  Zealand  would,  if  adopted,  be  equally  successful  in  the 
United  States.  It  must  be  remembered  that  New  Zealand  is  a  new  country 
with  a  small  and  practically  homogeneous  population  and  without  the  sharp 
contrasts  between  wealth  and  poverty  which  exist  in  the  United  States. 
The  entire  population  of  the  colony  is  below  800,000,  less  than  one-fourth 
of  the  population  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  most  of  its  inhabitants  are 
engaged  in  agricultural  and  pastoral  pursuits.  Thus,  in  1896,  there  were 
only  27,389  persons  in  New  Zealand  employed  in  factories,  workshops, 
meat-preserving,  and  other  similar  establishments,  whereas  in  the  United 
States,  there  are  over  seven  millions  of  persons  engaged  in  manufacturing 
and  mechanical  pursuits. 

There  are  still  other  reasons  which  render  the  example  of  compulsory 
arbitration  in  New  Zealand,  inapplicable  to  American  institutions.  In  the 
first  place,  there  is  the  separate,  independent,  partially  sovereign  govern- 
ment of  each  of  our  forty-five  states,  with  inter-state  competition  in  all 
forms  of  industry.  A  decision  favorable  to  labor  and  to  the  conscientious 
manufacturers  in  one  state  could  be  immediately  nullified  by  adverse  action 
or  simply  lack  of  any  action  whatsoever  in  another  state. 


a. 

3 
< 


pq 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  345 

The  tendency  of  backward  states  is  to  oppose  remedial  industrial  legis- 
lation, while  in  the  more  progressive  states  such  legislation  does  not  meet 
with  the  same  opposition,  and  the  present  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  factory 
and  mining  laws  of  the  various  states  would  l^e  felt  a  thousandfold  more 
acutely  in  the  event  of  the  adoption  of  compulsory  arbitration.  Again,  the 
intricate  and  complex  character  of  American  industry,  the  necessity  of  rec- 
ognizing and  maintaining  differentials  because  of  the  location  of  the  various 
industries,  and  above  all  the  diverse  and  heterogeneous  nature  of  the  people 
composing  the  American  republic  would  render  compulsory  arbitration,  if 
adopted  by  the  various  states,  inadvisable  if  not  absolutely  repugnant  to 
the  great  mass  of  both  the  employing  and  working  classes. 

There  is,  moreover,  a  deq>seated  distrust  among  workingmen  as  to 
the  fairness  and  impartiality  of  the  judiciary,  and  even  apart  from  this  diffi- 
culty, it  would  be  impossible  in  our  American  states  to  create  a  court  of 
arbitration  the  findings  of  which  would  not  be  subject  to  review  by  tin- 
superior  courts.  Any  other  proceeding  would  probably  come  under  tin- 
head  of  acts  depriving  citizens  of  property  without  due  process  of  law.  and 
would  therefore  be  in  conflict  with  the  state  and  federal  constitutions. 

While  for  the  states  of  the  American  republic  a  general  compulsory 
arbitration  law  is  not  practicable,  there  aie  particular  instances  in  \vh:c!i 
compulsion  might  possibly  prove  l>eneficial.  It  would  be  j>crfect!y  fea 
sible,  as  is  done  in  some  Kuroi>can  cities,  to  comix.-!  street  railway  companies 
or  other  companies  obtaining  valuable  state  or  municipal  framings  to  sub 
mil  all  differences  with  their  employees  to  arbitration,  and  the  failure  or 
refusal  so  to  arbitrate  could  be  considered,  like  the  failure  to  Keep  tin-  pn-p- 
erty  in  running  order,  as  a  violation  of  the  franchise  and  a  \\aiver  of  all 
rights.  There  are  certain  industries,  such  as  railroad  and  street  railway 
transportation,  where  the  power  of  the  state  mi^ht  occasionally  l><-  exer- 
cised in  order  to  secure  the  country  from  incalculable  damage.  In  tin-  case 
of  railroads  engaged  in  inter-state  trnltic,  jh^ibly  in  ccrlam  ciivunM.mccs. 
it  might  become  necessary  for  the  federal  ^o\  eminent,  undrr  its  right  to 
retnilate  commerce  Ix-tween  stale-,  to  (..n,|.cl  Midi  railroads  to  arbitrate 


346  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

differences  with  their  workmen.  Many  of  the  arguments  against  compul- 
sory arbitration  laws  enacted  by  the  states  would  not  apply  to  a  specific  law 
of  this  sort  with  a  limited  scope,  if  passed  by  the  federal  government  for 
certain  definite,  prescribed  cases,  but  even  such  arbitration  should  be  re- 
sorted to  only  as  an  extreme  measure.  It  is  probable  that  no  action  of  this 
or  a  similar  sort  will  be  taken  unless  a  crisis  should  arise,  such  as  that  which 
occurred  in  the  coal  strike  in  the  fall  of  1902.  Until  such  a  crisis  comes, 
however,  it  will  be  better  and  more  in  accord  with  ihe  spirit  of  American 
institutions  to  seek  industrial  peace  wherever  possible  in  trade  agreements 
and  not  in  compulsory  arbitration. 


CHAPTER  XXXIX 
THE  STRIKE  VERSUS  THE  TRADE  AGREEMENT. 

The  Trade  Agreement  and  Industrial  Peace.  The  Agreement  and  Union  Recog- 
nition. DiiViculty  of  Reaching  Agreements.  The  True  Cooperation  between  Labor 
and  Capital.  The  Essence  of  Trade  Unionism.  The  Agreement  in  its  Simplest  Form. 
Local  and  National  Agreements.  How  Agreements  are  Reached.  The  Treaty- 
Making  Power  of  the  Union.  Sentiment  and  Business.  The  Agreement  and  the 
Future  Relations  of  Labor  and  Capital. 

HP  I  IE  hope  of  future  peace  in  the  industrial  world  lies  in  the  trade  agree- 
*  ment.  There  is  nothing  so  promising  to  the  establishment  of  friendly 
relations  between  labor  and  capital  as  the  growing  tendency  of  representa- 
tives of  both  sides  to  meet  in  friendly  conference  in  order  to  settle  conditions 
of  employment.  These  conferences  are  as  impressive  as  inijx>rtant.  The 
men  assembled  in  national  joint  convention  represent  two  great  estates, 
the  employers  and  the  workmen  of  a  vast  industry.  It  is  like  a  congress  leg- 
islating for  a  nation,  or,  rather,  like  a  coming  together  of  the  representa- 
tives of  two  great  nations,  upon  the  basis  of  mutual  resort  and  mutual  tol- 
eration, for  the  formulation  of  a  treaty  of  peace  for  the  government  of  in- 
dustry and  the  prosperity  and  welfare  of  the  contracting  parties-. 

The  trade  agreement  is  the  clearest  and  most  unmistakable  recognition 
of  the  ini|x»rtance  of  Ialx>r  to  capital  and  of  capital  t<  •  lain  >r.  The  c<  >ojK:ra  - 
tion  Inrtween  these  two  factors  of  production,  a  co«".|K-ration  ni»re  sp.  .ken  <>i 
than  believed  in,  receives  in  these  formal  treaties  of  peace  and  amity  deli 
nite  expression  and  complete  confirmation.  The  bituminous  coal  ..]>erati>is. 
representing  an  approximate  yearly  output  "f  jt  H  >.i  x « >.« «  K  >  tons,  and  the 
bituminous  mine-workers,  numl>enng  about  _•  50. («»<>.  iceo^m/e  in  their  an- 
nual conferences  their  dqxnidcnce  uix»n  each  other  for  the  furtherance  «•! 
their  respective  needs  and  for  the  promotion  of  their  joint  interests.  The 

(347) 


348  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

trade  agreement  represents  the  highest  form  of  cooperation  in  modern  in- 
dustry. 

The  formulation  of  a  trade  agreement  which  will  be  satisfactory  to 
both  sides  and  will  meet  with  the  approval  of  all  parties,  is  by  no  means 
easy.  Those  who  deny  to  workingmen  capacity  for  self-government  should 
study  the  making  of  agreements  as  worked  out  in  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States.  These  agreements  and  the  conferences  which  pre- 
cede them  require  a  high  degree  of  intelligence  and  wise  moderation  upon 
the  part  of  the  workmen  and  diplomacy  and  skill  on  the  part  of  the  leaders. 
Before  such  an  agreement  is  possible,  a  basis  of  reasonable  demands  must 
be  evolved.  One  section  of  workmen  may  have  to  make  concessions  in 
favor  of  another,  and  frequently  the  whole  body  must  postpone  the  presen- 
tation of  justifiable  demands  until  a  more  opportune  moment.  It  is  nec- 
essary, moreover,  for  both  the  leaders  and  the  rank  and  file  to  appreciate 
the  attitude  and  position  of  the  employers.  An  agreement,  to  be  made  and 
lived  up  to,  must  be  reasonable  and  fair  to  both  sides ;  and  it  is  unwise,  even 
if  it  were  possible,  to  insist  upon  terms  that  are  ruinous  or  seriously  detri- 
mental to  employers.  The  formulation  of  such  an  agreement,  moreover, 
requires  great  patience  and  forbearance  and  necessitates  an  unusual  degree 
of  technical  knowledge.  The  problems  taken  up  and  discussed  are  com- 
plex and  difficult.  The  workmen  or  their  representatives  must  be  informed 
concerning  wages  in  their  own  as  well  as  in  other  industries ;  the  cost  of 
living ;  the  cost  of  production  to  the  employers ;  the  charges  for  transporta- 
tion ;  the  state  of  the  market ;  the  price,  cost,  and  quality  of  competing  pro- 
ducts ;  the  character  of  machinery  and  processes  used,  as  well  as  many  other 
factors  entering  into  the  question  of  the  ability  of  employers  to  pay  higher 
wages.  The  workingmen  must  recognize  the  difference  between  what  is 
desirable  and  what  is  attainable,  and  must  exercise  an  unusual  degree  of 
self-restraint. 

The  trade  agreement  secures  to  the  workingman  what  various  benefi- 
cent and  cooperative  schemes  in  the  past  have  failed  to  secure — a  real  co- 
operation between  employer  and  employee  and  a  measure  of  control  by 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  349 

\vorkingmeii  over  the  conditions  of  industry.  Cooperative  schemes,  sug- 
gested by  the  philanthropy  or  justice  of  employers,  arc.  in  a  sense,  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  claim  that  workingmen  should  have  a  say  in  tho 
conduct  of  business.  These  schemes,  however,  are  not  as  a  rule  successful, 
and  where  the  employer  has,  as  he  should  have,  the  complete  control  of  buy- 
ing, selling,  advertising,  accepting  credits,  making  contracts,  etc.,  the  effect 
of  extra  exertion  by  the  workingman  often  has  but  an  inappreciable  inilu- 
ence  upon  his  share  of  the  profits  of  the  enterprise.  The  sliding  scale  is 
a  more  imjx>rtant  form  of  cooperation  and  is  of  advantage  where  a  high, 
definite,  minimum  wage  is  made  the  basis.  These  cooperative  plans,  how- 
ever, prove  as  a  rule  but  a  slight  stimulus  to  the  workman  and  rarely  give 
him  any  real  interest  in,  or  any  real  control  over,  the  business.  The  em- 
ployees of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  could  not,  at  the  present 
rate  of  subscription,  secure  control  of  the  stock  within  a  century,  even 
if  the  stock  were  not  increased  during  that  time.  The  plan  of  securing 
even  a  partial  control  of  industry  by  workingmen  through  the  purchase  or 
allotment  of  stock  is  as  chimerical  as  a  scheme  suggested  to  me  by  a  friendly 
correspondent,  during  the  recent  strike,  viz.,  that  I  use  the  strike  fund  to 
purchase  the  various  railroad  and  mining  properties  under  the  control  <»i 
the  antagonistic  corporations,  and  thus  bring  the  strike  to  a  close. 

The  gift  of  money,  the  payment  of  premiums,  and  the  grant  of  sin.:!! 
favors  and  privileges  do  not  constitute  in  any  true  sense  a  cooperation  he 
I  ween  employer  and  employee.      While    individual    employers    ha\e    nia  !. 
splendid  benefactions,  the  inlluence  of  these  gins  is  small,  except  in  a  lev, 
instances.     The  creation   of  model   towns,   the  establishment   <>i    libraries 
gymnasiums,  natatoriuins.  and  assembly   room-   for  \\orkinen  are  entirely 
commendable  and  highly  praiseworthy,  if  lhe\    do  not   involve  Midi  a  de 
pcndence  of  the  workingman  upon  his  employs  as  \\ill  render  it   imp' 
sible  for  him  to  voice  his  grievances  ->r  pre-ent  reasonable  demands, 
well  that  the  workman  IK-  provided  with  free  napkin-.  towrN.  i<  ••  water,  and 
other  conveniences  and  comforts;  but  the  maintenance  ot   tad-  .ties  as  clean 
and  as  pleasant  as  jx.s-oble  should  not  be  a  matter  of  the  indiudua!  I 


350  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

of  employers.  After  all,  the  American  workingman  does  not  want  to  be 
favored  or  coddled.  The  total  amount  of  benefactions  of  this  sort  is  prob- 
ably much  less  than  one-tenth  or  one-twentieth  part  of  one  per  cent,  of  the 
annual  wages  of  the  American  workingnien.  Whatever  their  amount,  how- 
ever, these  benefactions,  whether  they  be  good  or  evil  in  their  purpose  and 
in  their  result,  do  not  create  or  constitute  that  real  cooperation  which  can 
be  obtained  only  through  the  trade  agreement. 

The  trade  agreement  represents  the  very  essence  of  trade  unionism. 
In  its  simplest  form  the  agreement  is  nothing  but  a  determination  of  wages, 
hours  of  labor,  and  conditions  of  work  by  men  in  a  single  establishment 
or  a  single  local  community.  From  the  very  beginning  of  labor  organiza- 
tion, agreements  of  this  nature  have  been  made  by  men  working  in  the  same 
establishment  or  the  same  town,  and  these  agreements,  whether  verbal  or 
written,  have  been  binding  upon  all  the  men  so  engaged.  These  agreements 
have  sometimes  been  nothing  more  than  the  simple  formulation  of  shop 
rules,  the  determination  of  the  length  of  the  working-day,  and  similar  mat- 
ters, which  have  thus  been  taken  out  of  the  realm  of  individual  bargaining 
l)etween  the  employer  and  each  separate  employee,  and  have  been  incorpor- 
ated into  a  contract  binding  upon  all. 

Trade  agreements,  therefore,  even  in  their  simplest  form,  represent  the 
central  idea  for  which  trade  unionism  stands,  viz.,  the  collective  or  joint 
bargain,  and  they  presuppose  the  existence  of  a  union  and,  in  the  case  of 
agreements  upon  a  large  scale,  associations  of  employers  as  well  as  of 
workmen.  The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  forming  trade  agreements  in  the 
past  has  been  this  lack  of  organization  upon  the  part  of  employers,  and  it 
has  been  largely  due  to  the  stimulus  of  trade  unionism  that  employers  have 
organized  upon  a  national  basis  and  have  entered  into  yearly  contracts  with 
their  workmen.  These  agreements  were  made  in  England  at  an  earlier 
date  than  in  the  United  States,  because  of  the  earlier  development  of  na- 
tional organizations  in  that  country.  They  have,  however,  become  increas- 
ingly popular  in  the  United  States,  and  in  about  a  dozen  ia^£|gHt  trades 
they  now  regulate  the  conditions  of  industry. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  351 

The  machinery  of  the  trade  agreement  has  l>een  evolved  in  each  trade 
in  answer  to  the  necessities  of  that  trade,  and  the  systems  in  vogue  differ, 
therefore,  in  various  particulars.  In  the  main,  ho\ve\er,  the  same  principles 
are  observed.  As  far  as  possible,  the  machinery  has  been  simplified  and 
has  been  rendered  effective  and  easy  to  control.  There  is.  as  a  rule,  a  joint 
convention  consisting  of  employers  on  the  one  side  and  representatives  of 
the  union  upon  the  other,  and  no  provision  is  made  for  the  presence  of  paid 
attorneys  or  of  experts.  The  number  of  representatives  differs  in  the  va- 
rious conventions.  It  is  usually  provided  that  the  vote  must  be  unanimous, 
and  there  is,  therefore,  no  possibility  of  the  formation  of  a  contract  without 
its  being  clearly  satisfactory  to  all  interests  represented. 

Joint  agreements  are.  in  fact,  treaties  of  peace  determining'  the  con- 
ditions under  which  the  industry  will  be  carried  on  for  a  year,  although 
longer  agreements  have  been  made  and  maintained.  The  agreement  usually 
provides  for  the  settlement  or  arbitration  of  all  controversies  which  may 
arise  under  it.  It  is  provided,  however,  that  the  arbitration  shall  l>e  in  the 
nature,  not  of  negotiation,  not  of  a  change  in  the  conditions  fixed  by  the 
agreement,  but  shall  Ix.'  limited  entirely  to  the  interpretation  of  the  agree- 
ment. Jn  the  contracts  existing  in  the  bituminous  coal  mining  industry, 
it  is  provided  that  in  the  case  of  a  dispute  arising  between  any  oj>crator  and 
miner  over  a  j>oint  covered  by  the  inter-state  agreement  that  cannot  l>c  set- 
tled Ixrtween  the  parties  directly  at  interest.  ap]>eals  may  be  taken  tn»m  one 
tribunal  to  another  until  the  eourt  of  last  resort  K  reached.  During  the 
course  of  the  dispute,  houever.  the  men  remain  at  work,  and  as  a  result  ot 
tlie  trade  agreement  and  of  the  pro\isinns  therein  contained  for  the  adji^i 
nient  of  all  questions  in  contr-  .\  cr->\,  the  number  »i  petty  local  strikes  ha> 
lH?en  miniinixed  and  conflicts  of  this  nafiie  ha\e  almost  entirely  disap 
|  >ea  re<  1 . ' 

'Tli.-    fo!>, , \\iiiK   ^   «|""l"l    !>"""   ''•'•   :ik-r<  '  mrtit    1..  i          n    tl-«       -i.-il    inmrf.   :in.|   ..;••  r 
at  or-,  of   Illinois : 

"(I.}  I)}  In  cast-  of  any  loral  trouble  an, my  .it  .my  *ha!t  ihioiiijh  MI,  h  i.iilnn-  i.. 
agree  between  the  pit-boss  and  any  miner  or  mint-  laborer,  the  pit  committee  ami  the 
miners'  local  president  and  the  pit  boss  arc  empowered  to  adjust  it;  and,  in  the  rase  of 


352  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

Trade  agreements  almost  identical  in  character  and  formulated  in  prac- 
tically the  same  manner,  exist  in  numerous  other  industries.  Such  agree- 
ments made  by  labor  organizations  have  been  rigidly  and  strictly  main- 
tained, even  at  the  sacrifice  of  temporary  advantages.  Employers  as  well 
as  workmen  have  shown  a  well-defined  tendency  to  live  up  to  the  spirit  of 
the  agreement  and  not  to  bind  themselves  solely  by  its  letter. 

The  advantage  of  the  trade  agreement,  apart  from  its  democratic  char- 
acter and  its  recognition  of  the  rights  and  obligations  of  both  sides,  is  the 
knowledge  which  it  gives  to  employer  and  workman  of  the  conditions  under 
which  labor  is  performed  and  the  manner  in  which  the  industry  is  con- 
ducted. Before  the  era  of  trade  agreements,  the  workmen  were  wont  to 
exaggerate  the  profits  of  the  employers  and  to  believe,  frequently  without 
cause,  that  they  were  being  exploited.  The  employers,  on  the  other  hand, 
often  failed  to  realize  the  effect  upon  the  wages  of  the  workmen  of  rising 
prices  and  increased  cost  of  living  and  were  liable  to  obtain  from  their 
foremen  or  others  a  false  idea  of  the  conditions  under  which  their  employees 
lived.  There  was  often  a  feeling  of  superiority  over  the  workmen  and  their 
representatives,  which,  as  a  result  of  the  trade  agreements,  is  now  being  ob- 
literated. Both  sides  enter  the  convention  with  the  hope  of  securing  a  rea- 


their  disagreement  it  shall  be  referred  to  the  Superintendent  of  the  Company  and  the 
President  of  the  miners'  local  executive  board,  where  such  exists,  and  shall  they  fail 
to  adjust  it — and  in  all  other  cases — it  shall  be  referred  to  the  Superintendent  of  the 
Company  ami  the  miners'  president  of  the  sub-district;  and,  should  they  fail  to  adjust 
it,  it  shall  be  referred  in  writing  to  the  officials  of  the  company  concerned  and  the 
State  officials  of  the  U.  M.  W.  of  A.,  for  adjustment;  and,  in  all  such  cases,  the  miners 
and  mine  laborers  and  parties  involved  must  continue  at  work  pending  an  investigation 
and  adjustment,  until  a  final  decision  is  reached  in  the  manner  above  set  forth. 

"(13  c)  If  any  day  men  refuse  to  continue  at  work  because  of  a  grievance  which 
has.  or  has  not  been  taken  up  for  adjustment  in  the  manner  provided  herein,  and  such 
action  shall  seem  likely  to  impede  the  operation  of  the  mine,  the  pit  committee  shall 
immediately  furnish  a  man  or  men  to  take  such  vacant  place  or  places,  at  the  scale 
rate,  in  order  that  the  mine  may  continue  at  work;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  any 
member,  or  members,  of  the  United  Mine  Workers,  who  may  be  called  upon  by  the 
pit  boss,  or  pit  committee,  to  immediately  take  the  place  or  places  assigned  to  him  or 
them  in  pursuance  hereof. 


O.       'S 
o       _ 


•:  £ 


3      5 

o 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  353 

sonable  settlement,  and  any  proposition  made  by  either  side  is  given  a  re- 
spectful hearing. 

Trade  agreements  are  a  matter  of  business.  The  representatives  of 
the  employers  do  not  desire  to  pay  higher  wages  than  are  necessary,  and  the 
workmen  do  not  wish  to  take  smaller  wages  than  they  must.  To  this  very 
fact,  that  the  two  parties  meet  upon  the  plane  of  business,  it  is  due  that  the 
best  results  are  obtained.  The  attitude  of  mind  which  dictates  the  making 
of  the -ordinary  business  contracts  prevails  in  the  formulation  of  trade 
agreements.  Instead  of  a  loose,  verbal  arrangement,  the  trade  agree- 
ment is  usually  a  written  document,  stating  in  precise  terms  its  va- 
rious provisions,  so  that  there  is  little  possibility  of  error.  Moreover, 
for  such  difficulties  as  arise  in  interpretation,  a  system  of  arbitration  is 
usually  provided.  Trade  agreements  thus  obviate  hundreds  of  little  misun- 
derstandings which  might  otherwise  lead  to  re-crimination  and  to  strikes 
and  lockouts.  In  the  course  of  a  few  years  of  experience,  therefore,  the 
trade  agreements  become  fixed  upon  a  settled  basis,  and  their  general  pro- 
visions l>ecomc  universally  known. 

The  difficulties,  dangers,  and  misunderstandings  \\hich  trade  agree- 
ments obviate  may  be  seen  from  a  stiuh  of  the  joint  conventions  in  \\hich 
these  agreements  are  formulated.     It  usually  hapj>ens  that  during  the  first 
few  days,  the  radical  Sj>eakers  on  lx>th  sides  make  extravagant  claims  or 
give  utterance  to  more  or  less  violent  speeches,  so  that  the  t\\o  interest ->  ap 
pear  absolutely  irreconcilable.     As  the  convention  |  ro^rcsses.  ho\\r\cr.  tiu 
conservative  men  on  l>oth  sides  gradually  approach  a  common  nnderM.md 
ing,  and  by  the  time  the  matter  is  referred  to  the  scale  romin'ttce.  tin-  • 
fercnces  of  opinion  have  been  minimi/ed,  and  a  general  agreement  i--  aim- 
invariably  reached.      In  the  Tinted  Mine  Worker^'  o>mc:it!»r,-.  the  agree 
ment  recommended  by  the  scale  committee,  \\lmli  i->  a  small  o«mmitUr  rep 
resenting  the  miners  and  oj>erators  of  the  vari<>u-  >tates  and  ap|*>intcd  by 
the  two  sides,  is  referred  to  the  general  comentioii.  the  HIIIHT-. 
ators  voting  by  states.      In  the  jKist  the  rq>«>iN  «-f  the  scale  «••  mmiitec  h.i\e 
been  unanimously  adopted  in  every  instance.     It  docs  not,  ot  course,  f«-l 


354  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

low,  nor  is  it  true,  that  every  man  or  even  the  men  of  every  district  believe 
that  the  provisions  are  what  they  should  be ;  but  in  view  of  all  the  circum- 
stances, each  man  and  each  district  is  willing  to  make  certain  concessions, 
and  a  satisfactory  arrangement  based  upon  mutual  compromises  is  made 
and  adhered  to. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  trade  agreement  will  prevent  all 
strikes.  It  will  undoubtedly  minimize  these  industrial  conflicts,  by  obviat- 
ing misunderstandings,  by  showing  each  side  the  position  of  the  other,  by 
creating  a  more  friendly  feeling  between  employers  and  employees,  and  fi- 
nally by  making  strikes  and  lockouts,  when  they  do  occur,  so  wide-spread, 
general,  and  expensive,  that  their  recurrence  will  be  avoided.  The  fact  that 
failure  to  reach  an  agreement  would  result  either  in  a  great  strike  or  a  gen- 
eral lockout,  impels  each  side  to  respect  the  reasonable  demands  of  the  other. 
If  it  were  not  for  that  possibility,  the  more  radical  and  uncompromising  ele- 
ments could  not  be  induced  to  forego  their  claims.  With  each  new  agree- 
ment, however,  both  sides  become  more  conservative  and  more  willing  to 
sacrifice  a  part  of  their  demands,  and  with  each  passing  year,  the  industries 
in  which  trade  agreements  prevail  become  established  on  a  firmer  and  more 
permanent  foundation  of  peace. 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE  COAL  STRIKE  OF  J902.— THE  ADVENT  OF  THE  GREAT 
RAILROAD  CORPORATIONS. 

The  Strike  of  IQOJ  a  Landmark  in  the  History  of  Labor.  Importance  of  Conflict — 
Enormous  Interests  Invoked.  The  Strike  an  Incident  in  a  Struggle  of  Two  Genera 
t:ons.  History  of  Labor  in  the  Anthracite  Regions.  Early  Equality.  Deep  Mining 
and  Monopoly.  Coal  and  the  Civil  \V;ir.  "1  he  Good  Old  Times"  of  Oppression.  The 
Extinction  of  the  Old  Union.  The  Advent  of  the  Great  Railroad  Corporations.  The 
inilux  of  New  Races.  A  Surplus  of  Lal><>r.  Work  and  Pay  Insecure.  The  Elastic  Ton. 
The  Car  of  Live  Oak.  Exactions  and  Deductions.  The  Docking  Grievance.  One- 
Dollar  Powder  at  $^./5-  Company  Stores.  Exorbitant  Prices.  Company  Houses. 
The  Marklc  Evictions.  Competition  at  the  Expense  of  the  Miner. 

THK  struck'  of  lalx>i  to  secure  control  of  itself  and  to  letter  it>  condi- 
tions is  a  slow,  incessant,  upward  movement.  The  contest  is  fought 
out,  not  by  a  few  brilliant  strikes  or  by  the  sudden  emergence  of  a  few  great 
leaders,  but  by  slow  upbuilding  forces  acting  uj>on  vast  bodies  of  men 
and  giving  to  them  increased  confidence  and  an  increased  sense  of  solidarity 
and  brotherliness.  However,  at  infrequent  intervals  events  occur  of  start- 
ling or  dramatic  nature,  which,  fastening  upon  the  working  classes  the  at- 
tention of  the  whole  community,  aid  and  contribute  to  the  furtherance  of 
the  labor  movement. 

An  event  of  this  nature  was  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  of  !<><>_'.  Tln^ 
strike  in  point  of  the  number  of  men  engaged,  the  length  of  the  content,  the 
determination  with  which  it  was  fought  out.  and  thr  losses  which  it  entailed 
upon  both  parties,  and.  unfortunately,  upon  the  gctier.il  public,  stand*  nut 
prominently  in  the  history  of  labor  conflict?.  At  a  signal  almost  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  men  and  t>oys  dropjx-d  their  tools.  ;m<I  during  a 
period  of  over  five  month*,  despite  the  pangs  of  hunger,  despite  temptations 
to  desert  the  came,  none  but  an  inconsiderable  minority  returned  f>  work. 

(355) 


356  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

The  contest  was  memorable  also  for  the  enormous  strength  of  the  associ- 
ated corporations  opposing  the  mineworkers.  The  railroad  and  mining 
companies  and  their  financial  backers  represented  a  capital  of  hundreds  of 
millions,  if  not  of  billions  of  dollars.  The  financial  losses  resulting  from  this 
strike  were  such  as  to  make  it  an  object  lesson  in  the  costliness  of  labor  con- 
flicts. It  was  estimated  by  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission  that  the 
loss  to  railroads  and  coal  companies  in  reduced  freight  and  coal  receipts  was 
not  less  than  $74,000,000,  and  the  loss  in  wages  to  the  mine  workers  not 
less  than  $25,000,000,  the  total  loss  being  placed  by  the  Commission  at  the 
enormous  sum  of  $99,000,000.  The  coal  strike  of  1902  was  finally  mem- 
orable for  the  great  hardships  which  it  entailed  upon  the  public  and  for  the 
resolute  intervention  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  with  the  settle- 
ment of  the  strike  as  a  direct  consequence. 

The  strike  was,  however,  rightly  considered,  not  an  event  in  itself,  but 
merely  an  incident  in  a  great  drama  which  has  been  going  on  for  over  fifty 
years.  During  the  last  two  generations  a  slow,  stubborn  contest  has  been 
waged  by  labor  in  the  anthracite  coal  fields  against  the  ever-growing  power 
of  monopoly  and  the  strike  of  1902  was  but  the  culmination  of  a  develop- 
ment lasting  through  three-fourths  of  a  century. 

Although  anthracite  coal  began  to  be  shipped  to  the  seaboard  during 
the  War  of  1812,  its  production  was,  until  1850,  extremely  slight.  At  that 
time  the  business  of  mining  hard  coal  was  unimportant,  and  the  number  of 
miners,  only  about  six  or  eight  thousand.  The  veins  were  largely  outcrop- 
ping or  were  easy  to  reach,  the  amount  of  necessary  capital  was  small,  and 
wages  were  lowr  and  employment  irregular.  There  was  no  monopoly  of 
the  mines,  no  connection  between  transportation  and  mining  companies, 
and  no  labor  problem  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word. 

During  the  period  from  1850  to  1860,  however,  despite  setbacks  and 
hard  times,  the  coal  mining  industry  grew  rapidly,  and  after  the  breaking 
out  of  the  Civil  War,  the  industry  became  extremely  profitable.  During 
the  years  from  1861  to  1865  the  coal  miners  for  the  first  and  only  time  in 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 


357 


their  history  received  large  earnings,  and  although  prices  had  risen  at  the 
same  time,  they  were  still  able  to  secure  more  for  their  wages  than  they  have 
subsequently  been  able  to  obtain.  After  the  war.  however,  although  the 
operators  themselves  had  made  large  profits,  an  attempt  was  made  to  tic- 
press  wages  and  to  break  up  the  miners'  union.  For  eight  years,  from  1867 
to  1875,  an  active  and  aggressive  war  was  carried  on  by  the  oj>erators 
against  the  union,  the  Workingmen's  Benevolent  Association,  and  by  the 
close  of  the  latter  year,  the  organization  had  ceased  to  exist. 

It  was  especially  during  the  quarter  of  a  century  that  elapsed  l>etwccn 
1875  and  1900  that  the  abuses  leading  to  the  strikes  of  1900  and  1902  were 
inaugurated  or  intensified.  During  this  period  of  practically  unorganized 
labor,  the  conditions  of  the  miners  grew  worse  and  worse.  The  object  of 
the  operators  seems  to  have  been  to  keep  the  miners  in  subjection  by  de- 
feating all  efforts  to  form  trade  unions,  and  in  this  endeavor  they  practically 
succeeded.  The  miners  became  organized  from  time  to  time  in  various 
parts  of  the  field,  but  the  old  expedient  was  resorted  to  of  playing  off  OIK- 
section  against  another,  so  that  divided,  all  of  the  sections  fell.  I  )nring  this 
period  the  operators  also  introduced  large  numbers  of  laborers  from  AM-- 
tria,  Hungary,  Poland,  Russia,  and  Italy  with  the  idea  of  lowering  wages 
through  conijxrtition  and  of  defeating  attempts  at  organization  by  Keeping 
on  hand  an  oversupply  of  unorganized  men.  It  is  interestirg  to  n«>t<-  in  tlp-> 
connection  that  |>octic  justice  has  l)een  meted  <>nt  t'»  those  \vh<>  initiated  tin- 
plan.  The  surplus  of  labor  has  lx:en  a  curse  not  only  to  the  men  themsehe-. 
but  to  the  <>i>erators,  and  the  non-Knglish  speaking  men  iiitpxlm  e<l  t<-  break 
the  unions  have  in  the  course  of  time  Ixxome-  ihe  stnunclicst  and  nxM  l«-\;; 
adherents  of  lal)or  organization. 

In  their  unorganized,  or  only  partially  organi/ed  state,  the  miners  MM 
fered  iji  many  ways.      The  constant  acecssii.n  ot  new  Ixulies  <>t  men  willing 
to  work  hard  and  long  for  small  pay  depressed  \\at-es  to  a  minimum, 
old  Knglish,  Scotch.  Irish,  (ierman.  and  \\cMi  miners 
ecpt  the  wages  for  which  newly  arrived    I'des.   Hungarians,  and   Italia:, <. 


358  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

under  the  stress  of  a  merciless  competition,  were  compelled  to  work.  Much 
of  even  these  low  wages,  moreover,  was  never  paid  in  cash  to  the  mine- 
workers.  There  were  in  vogue  many  systems  for  cheating  the  men. 
While  some  companies  were  reasonably  and  some  scrupulously  conscientious 
about  such  matters,  others  incessantly  abused  the  ignorance  and  impotence 
of  their  employees.  The  early  union,  the  Workingmen's  Benevolent  As- 
sociation, had  secured  a  law  compelling  the  weighing  of  coal  and  the  adop- 
tion of  a  standard  ton,  that  every  man  might  know  what  he  mined  and  be 
paid  accordingly.  Upon  the  dissolution  .of  the  union,  however,  the  oper- 
ators compelled  the  disorganized  miners  to  surrender  their  rights  under  this 
law.  The  size  of  the  ton  increased,  so  that  2,800  and  even  3,190  pounds 
came  to  be  considered  a  ton,  while  the  price  remained  at  the  same  level. 
The  operators  who  paid  their  royalties  by  the  ton  of  2,240  pounds  and  who 
sold  their  coal  to  the  railroads  or  to  the  consumers  by  the  ton  of  2,240  or 
less,  exacted  from  the  miner  as  high  as  3,190  pounds  to  the  ton.  Where  the 
coal  was  paid  by  the  car,  the  same  system  was  adopted,  and  the  car  grew, 
as  the  men  said,  as  though  it  were  made  of  live  oak.  Thus,  the  encroach- 
ments upon  the  wages  of  the  miners  were  insidious.  If  a  man  were  being 
paid  a  dollar  for  filling-  a  certain  car  with  coal,  he  was  paid  no  more  when 
three  or  four  inches  were  added  to  the  size  t>f  the  car.  nor  was  he  paid  more 
when  he  was  obliged  to  add  nine  or  ten  inches  of  "topping"  above  the  rail- 
ing of  the  car.  In  fact  he  was  more  likely  to  be  paid  less.  The  com- 
panies adopted  a  system  of  docking,  which  in  many  cases  was  arbitrary, 
unjust,  and  tyrannous.  The  miner  had  no  opportunity  to  test  whether  or 
not  he  had  been  docked  fairly  for  impurities  or  underweight,  but  a  round 
sum  was  taken  from  him  at  the  sole  discretion  of  the  docking  boss.  This 
device  led  on  the  part  of  some  companies  to  a  system  of  unblushing  theft 
and  reacted  by  making  many  of  the  miners  careless.  According  _to  the 
testimony  adduced  by  the  operators  themselves  before  the  Anthracite  Coal 
Strike  Commission,  the  amount  docked  even  by  fair  companies  diminished 
50$  as  soon  as  the  miners  were  allowed  to  employ  check  docking  bosses. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 


359 


In  still  other  ways  were  the  miners  subject  to  deductions  and  exactions. 
As  the  result  of  an  antiquated  agreement,  the  miners  were  obliged  to  buy 
their  powder  from  the  companies  and  to  pay  $2.75  for  a  keg  which  was  not 
worth  over  $1.10.  Since  it  is  impossible  to  blast  coal  without  powder, 
the  powder  grievance  became  an  increasingly  serious  one  as  the  veins  of 
coal  grew  thinner  and  harder  to  mine. 

Not  only  was  the  miner  mulcted  as  a  producer,  but  he  was  controlled 
and  in  many  cases  directly,  clearly,  and  unscrupulously  cheated  and  de- 
frauded as  a  consumer.  The  legislature  of  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  had 
passed  anti-truck  store  laws,  but  the  operators,  who  have  always  cried  loud- 
est against  illegal  action  by  miners,  openly  and  unhesitatingly  violated  the 
act  and  subsequently  evaded  it  by  various  devices.  In  many  collieries  the 
mine  worker  was  not  paid  in  the  legal  coin  of  the  realm,  in  good.  hard, 
money,  but  was  given  an  order  on  the  store,  where  he  was  obliged  to  buy 
inferior  goods  at  exorbitant  prices.  At  first,  no  doubt,  the  company  stores 
were  instituted  for  the  real  advantage  of  the  workingmen.  since  in  those 
days  there  were  practically  no  stores  in  the  mining  towns,  and  (hiring  the 
earlier  j>eriod  it  seems  that  many  of  the  company  stores,  as  well  as  many  of 
the  company  houses,  were  run  with  reasonable  regard  to  the  interests  of 
the  employees.  The  stores,  however,  as  well  as  the  other  institutions,  were 
at  best  harmful  in  their  tendency,  since  they  were  calculated  to  increase 
the  dependence  of  the  workingman  upon  his  employer;  ;m<l  in  many  case-. 
they  had.  intentionally  or  unintentionally,  the  effect  <»t  defrauding  the  mine 
workers.  Often  a  man  together  with  his  children  would  \\i«rl\  f«  >r  months 
without  receiving  a  dollar  of  money,  and  not  infrequent]/  lie  \\<>nl<l  find  at 
the  end  of  the  month  nothing  in  his  envcl«i|>e  but  a  statement  ih.it  liis  in 
dcbtcdness  to  the  company  had  inn-eased  b\  ><•  many  d"11.irv  Many  r.  mi 
panics  earned  as  much  through  their  company  st«.res  as  tlmm-ii  mining 
coal,  or.  as  the  mineworkers  themselves  r\pre»s<-d  it.  many  ni  the  companies 
earned  the  money  not  <mlv  bv  mining;  o.al  bill  l>\  iinnin-  niincr^.  I  lie  0-111 
panv  houses  also  ser\ed  in  sunn-  eases  a-,  a  nie.-.n-  <•!  e\t"i'ti"ii.  in  other  in- 


360  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

stances,  as  a  weapon  to  be  used  against  the  miners,  the  cruel  and  merciless 
eviction  of  the  Markle  tenants  showing  what  could  be  done  in  this  way 
against  unorganized  workingmen. 

During  this  whole  period  of  unorganized  labor,  during  these  halcyon 
days,  upon  which  the  operators  have  never  ceased  to  look  back  with  regret, 
the  conditions  of  the  workingmen  were  extremely  bad  and  wages  were  low 
and  fluctuated  violently.  The  miners  averaged  only  one  hundred  and  ninety 
ten-hour  days  per  year,  and  the  mine  workers  were,  of  course,  paid  only  for 
the  time  which  they  were  allowed  or  permitted  to  work.  In  very  good  times 
the  men  were  able  to  work  a  fairly  large  number  of  days,  but  in  times  of  de- 
pression conditions  grew  rapidly  worse.  Whatever  advantages  resulted 
from  the  reckless  and  unrestricted  competition  of  the  time  accrued  to  the 
coal  companies  or  the  railroads,  and  whatever  disadvantages  or  hardships 
ensued  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  workmen.  The  coal  operator  played  with  the 
mine  worker  a  game  of  chance,  in  which  it  was  "Pleads,  I  win ;  tails,  you 
lose." 

Even  when  the  mines  changed  from  ownership  by  the  coal  companies 
to  ownership  by  the  railroads,  the  condition  of  the  miners  did  not  appre- 
ciably improve.  In  the  early  7o's  the  anthracite  railroads,  with  the  Reading 
at  their  head,  began  to  invade  the  field  and  to  buy  up  coal  properties  on  all 
sides,  and  this  process  has  been  continued  for  thirty  years.  The  mine 
workers,  however,  disorganized  as  they  were,  did  not  secure  any  advan- 
tage from  the  economies  which  it  was  claimed  were  effected  by  the  railroad 
companies'  owning  the  mines.  No  increase  in  wages  could  be  paid  as  long 
as  the  railroads  felt  themselves  obliged  to  pay  dividends  on  an  enormous 
and  excessive  capitalization.  The  former  owners  had  not  only  extorted 
money  from  the  mine  workers,  but  had  capitalized  their  future  chances  of 
extortion  in  the  price  which  they  asked  for  their  property.  In  the  purchase 
of  these  lands,  the  railroads,  in  an  era  of  unbounded  optimism,  launched 
into  the  wildest  extravagances,  and  some  of  these  companies  have  since 
been  chronically  in  the  hands  of  receivers  in  an  attempt  to  sweat  out  of  their 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  361 

system  the  excess  water.  The  cry  for  dividends  raised  by  stockholders, 
loaded  do\vn  with  securities  bought  at  a  ruinous  price,  had  the  effect  of  fur- 
ther stimulating  the  directors  to  look  for  more  earnings  out  of  the  wages 
of  the  workingmen.  Some  of  these  coal  companies,  moreo\er,  were  and 
still  are  "mine  poor,"  possessing  properties  which  \\  ill  be  of  enormous  value 
in  the  future,  but  which  are  necessarily  idle  now,  and  the  burden  which 
should  be  borne  by  future  generations  was  shifted  to  the  shoulders  of  the 
mine  workers. 

In  one  respect  the  advent  of  the  great  railroad  corporations  has  \ytxn 
of  advantage  to  the  mine  workers.  By  means  of  these  large  organizations, 
controlling  vast  sums  of  money,  the  industry  of  mining  coal  has  been  sys- 
tematized and  some  check  placed  upon  the  indiscriminate  and  cut-throut 
competition  prevailing  in  former  times.  The  railroad  companies  have,  per- 
haps, been  foremost  in  introducing  reforms  on  the  technical  side  of  mining, 
in  improving  ventilation  and  the  general  conditions  of  work.  It  is  only  fair 
to  state  that  the  worst  abuses  of  company  stores,  company  houses,  company 
doctors  and  various  other  means  and  forms  of  extortion,  were  practiced  to 
a  less  extent  by  the  railroads  than  by  some  of  the  independent  operators 
although  it  is  claimed  by  these  latter  that  they  were  forced  to  such  courses 
by  the  extortionate  freight  rates  on  coal  to  the  sealx-anl.  L'pon  the  whole. 
however,  the  railroads  failed  to  improve  or  ameliorate  the  conditions  <>i" 
the  men  under  their  control.  Wages  were  not  increased,  hours  not  re- 
duced, grievances  not  removed,  and  the  unions  of  the  workmen  not  recog- 
nized by  or  through  any  voluntary  action  of  the  railroad  cor jx>rat ions. 
Whatever  small  advantage  the  mine  workers  secured  from  the  advent  «<l 
the  railroad  companies  was  purely  incidental  to  the  improved  methods  oj 
mining  which  had  come  into  vogue.  In  their  hostility  to  trade  unions, 
moreover,  and  in  their  refusal  to  grant  any  reform  <.r  redress  until  extorted 
from  them,  the  railroad  eor|M>rati«»ns  failed  signally  in  their  oblivion*, 
toward  the  great  Ixnly  of  work i tinmen.  u|*»n  \\hose  lalor  their  profits  and 
their  general  welfare  ultimately  depends. 


CHAPTER  XLI 

THE  COAL  STRIKE  OF  J902.— THE  ADVENT  OF  THE  UNITED 
MINEWORKERS  OF  AMERICA 

Organization  Necessary  in  the  Anthracite  Region.  Difficulty  of  the  Problem.  The 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America.  Its  Predecessors,  1861-1890.  Its  History,  1890 
1900.  The  Strike  of  1897.  Rapid  Growth.  The  Mineworkers  not  exclusively  a  Bitum- 
inous Organization.  Necessity  of  a  National  Organization.  Successful  Strikes. 
Inter-State  Agreements  in  the  West.  Confidence  in  the  Organization.  The  Work  of 
the  Organizers.  Appeals  from  the  Anthracite  Region.  Demands  of  the  Men.  The 
Strike  of  1900.  The  Surrender  of  the  Operators.  After  the  Strike. 

A  S  late  as  1899  the  idea  of  organizing  the  anthracite  miners  of  Penn- 
•**•  sylvania  was  scouted  by  all  but  a  few  of  the  leaders  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers.  The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  organization  appeared 
insurmountable.  The  differences  in  race,  religion,  and  ideals  of  the  twenty 
nationalities  in  the  region,  the  variations  in  the  standard  of  living,  the  mu- 
tual distrust  among  the  races,  and  the  former  failures  of  attempts  to  form 
permanent  unions,  all  conspired  to  make  the  men  distrustful  of  the  new 
movement.  Among  the  three  districts  of  the  anthracite  region,  the  Lack- 
awanna,  Lehigh,  and  Schuylkill,  keen  jealousy  existed,  and  conditions 
varied  to  such  an  extent  as  to  render  it  difficult  to  formulate  the  grievances 
in  a  series  of  general  demands.  The  market  was  glutted  with  coal,  and 
the  region  was  glutted  with  men.  The  operators  were  united  in  a  bitter 
and  uncompromising  hostility  towards  any  form  of  organization  among  the 
miners,  and  the  pioneers  in  the  movement  were  threatened  with  the  possi- 
bility of  a  blacklist.  Many  miners  grown  old  in  the  anthracite  fields  shook 
their  heads  and  gloomily  predicted  that  organization  would  never  secure 
a  foothold  in  the  anthracite  region.  Within  a  year  all  this  had  changed, 
and  the  anthracite  miners  had  won  the  greatest  victory  ever  secured  in  the 
seventy-five  years  of  mining  in  that  region. 

(362) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  363 

The  experience  of  the  fifty  preceding  years  seemed  to  justify  the  pes- 
simism of  the  workers  who  had  spent  their  entire  lives  and  whose  fathers 
before  them  had  toiled  from  boyhood  in  the  anthracite  mines.  To  form 
unions  of  mine  workers  in  the  past,  many  efforts  had  been  made ;  but  either 
through  internal  jealousies  or  by  the  hostility  of  the  operators,  each  attempt 
was  doomed  to  failure.  As  early  as  1849  a  ""ion  of  mine  workers  was  or- 
ganized in  the  anthracite  region  by  an  Englishman  named  John  Bates,  but 
this  as  well  as  several  other  organizations  of  a  local  character  speedily  col- 
lapsed. In  1861  an  organization  called  the  American  Miners'  Association 
was  established  in  Illinois  and  gradually  extended  to  the  eastern  states,  but 
following  the  unsuccessful  strikes  of  1867  or  1868,  the  association  col- 
lapsed. In  1869  a  union,  known  as  the  Miners'  and  Laborers'  Benevolent 
Association,  was  formed  in  the  anthracite  region  under  the  leadership  of 
John  Siney.  This  organization  grew  rapidly,  and  notwithstanding  the  in- 
tense antagonism  of  the  operators,  maintained  its  existence  until  the  year 
1875,  when  a  general  strike  was  inaugurated,  which  practically  closed  every 
mine  in  the  region;  but,  owing  to  the  opposition  of  the  mine  owners  and  to 
internal  dissensions  and  racial  and  religions  prejudices,  the  strike  failed, 
and  the  organization  was  destroyed. 

During  the  period  in  which  the  Miners'  and  Laborers'  Benevolent  As- 
sociation was  attempting  to  ameliorate  conditions  in  the  anthracite  region. 
the  Miners'  National  Association  flourished  in  the  bituminous  hcldv  In 
the  year  1874  its  membership  exceeded  jo.(xx>,  but  this  union,  like  tin- 
others  which  had  preceded  it,  disintegrated  and  shortly  disapi>eared.  hol- 
lowing the  dissolution  of  these  organizations,  came  the  Knights  of  l.a!>or. 
which  spread  rapidly  through  both  the  bituminous  and  anthracite  regions, 
and  for  a  time  exerted  considerable  influence  in  improving  the  conditions 
of  life  and  labor  of  the  workmen  employed  in  thr  o>al  industry.  'I  he  same 
forces,  however,  which  had  destroyed  other  organizations  \vrre  put  into 
operation  against  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and  its  membership  declined  as 
(juickly  as  it  had  grown.  My  18X5  its  jxiwer  for  go.*!  in  thr  mining  fields 


364  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

had  passed,  and  in  that  year  the  Miners'  National  Progressive  Union  was 
formed.  This  organization  was  more  successful  in  the  bituminous  fields 
than  any  of  its  predecessors.  Through  it,  joint  conferences  and  trade  agree- 
ments with  the  operators  were  established  in  West  Virginia,  western  Penn- 
sylvania, Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois;  but  owing  to  constant  friction  with 
what  remained  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  its  efforts  were  hampered  and  its 
influence  neutralized.  By  1890  its  membership  had  dwindled  away,  and  it 
became  patent  that  the  thorough  and  successful  organization  of  the  mine- 
workers  depended  upon  the  consolidation  of  the  Progressive  Union  and 
Assembly  No.  135  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  which  claimed  jurisdiction 
over  the  men  employed  in  the  coal  mines.  Accordingly,  in  1890,  the 
Miners'  National  Progressive  Union  and  District  Assembly  No.  135, 
Knights  of  Labor,  amalgamated,  forming  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America. 

For  several  years  thereafter  this  union  gradually  extended  its  influence 
and  organized  a  considerable  number  of  both  anthracite  and  bituminous 
men.  In  1894  a  general  strike  was  inaugurated  in  the  bituminous  fields, 
which  resulted  in  only  partial  success,  and  at  its  close  membership  rapidly 
declined  in  both  the  anthracite  and  bituminous  regions.  The  spring  of 
1897  found  the  total  number- of  members  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  reduced  to  less  than  9,000,  there  being  practically  nothing  left  of 
the  organization  in  the  anthracite  field,  and  the  bituminous  men  again 
sought  relief  from  their  hard  and  grinding  conditions  in  a  general  strike. 
After  a  stubbornly  fought  contest  a  compromise  settlement  was  made  which, 
while  giving  the  miners  only  a  slight  advance,  lent  an  impetus  to  the  organ- 
ization, and  from  that  time  on  membership  speedily  increased  in  all  the  bi- 
tuminous coal-producing  states.  In  the  following  year  joint  conferences 
and  trade  agreements  between  operators  and  miners  were  reestablished  and 
comparative  peace  and  prosperity  assured. 

But  during  all  this  time  the  conditions  of  the  anthracite  men  were 
growing  steadily  worse.  Every  effort  to  organize  them  or  to  ameliorate 
their  condition  having  met  with  failure,  it  seemed  that  the  anthracite 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  365 

workers  had  abandoned  hope.  ^Organizers  were  assigned  to  that  district, 
but  wherever  they  went  they  were  told  that  there  was  no  use  wasting  either 
time  or  money,  as  membership  in  the  union  would  be  followed  by  dismissal 
and  the  blacklist  and  that,  therefore,  the  anthracite  men  could  not  be  or- 
ganized. Thousands  of  them  declared  that  while  they  would  not  join  the 
union  and  jeopardize  their  chances  of  retaining  their  work,  they  would  par- 
ticipate in  a  strike  if  they  were  given  assurance  that  such  a  movement  could 
be  made  general. 

Early  in  1900  an  increased  force  of  organizers  was  stationed  in  that 
region,  and  while  they  were  unable  to  form  any  considerable  number  of 
local  unions,  they  were  successful  in  reviving  hope,  allaying  fear,  and  pre- 
paring the  mineworkers  for  the  struggle  that  seemed  inevitable.  In  the 
month  of  July  the  time  seemed  propitious  for  a  decisive  movement.  Mut- 
terings  of  discontent  were  heard  on  every  hand,  especially  among  the  mine- 
workers  of  the  Lackawanna  and  Lehigh  districts,  and  the  sentiment  in  favor 
of  a  strike  became  quite  general.  In  view  of  these  circumstances  a  conven- 
tion was  called  to  meet  about  the  middle  of  July  in  the  city  of  I  lazleton. 
for  the  purpose  of  deciding  upon  a  definite  policy  for  the  luture  guidance 
of  the  anthracite  mineworkers.  Many  delegates  in  this  convention  la\oiv<l 
an  immediate  strike,  but  letter  counsel  prevailed,  and  drastic  measures  \\ere 
not  then  resorted  to.  On  the  contrary,  the  officers  of  ihe  union  were  di- 
rected to  invite  the  operators  to  meet  representatives  of  the  mineworkers 
in  joint  conference  in  the  mouth  of  August,  in  order  th;.t  a  scak-  oi  \\a-cs 
might  be  formulated  which  would  be  satisfactory  t-»  all  parties  1:1  interest 
The  operators,  ignoring  this  invitation,  failed  to  attend  the  Au^iM  c- "men- 
tion; whereupon  the  representatives  of  the  mineuo-,  kcis  draitfl  a  series  ,  .1 
demands  covering  wages  and  conditions  of  employment.  an<l  decided  t.> 
strike  for  their  enforcement  unless  they  uere  a«vt.lc<!  to  \\ithin  ten  day- 
The  mine  o\\  m  rs  still  continued  to  ignore  tin-  rt  pre->entati\es  »l  then  cm 
pl«.yee-  and  refusal  to  make  any  concessions.  <  ,  ,nM-.|Uenll\  .  a  hil.e  \\.i-. 
declared,  to  take  place  on  September  i;ih. 

Although  the  meinbei  ship  of  the  union  at  this  tune  uas  le-  than  S.<*K). 


366  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

the  organization  represented  so  clearly  and  so  unmistakably  the  atti- 
tude of  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  mineworkers  that  from 
80,000  to  100,000  men  and  boys  quit  work  on  the  first  day  of  the  strike, 
and  with  each  succeeding  day  the  number  increased  until,  at  the  close  of  two 
weeks,  fully  90$  of  the  144,000  employees  were  idle.  The  strike,  which 
lasted  through  the  month  of  September  and  the  greater  part  of  October, 
aroused  intense  public  interest.  The  sympathy  of  the  press  and  the  people 
became  enlisted  on  the  side  of  the  mineworkers  as  soon  as  it  was  realized 
under  what  terrible  conditions  they  w-ere  compelled  to  toil. 

The  operators,  as  in  1902,  repelled  all  overtures  for  a  settlement  of  the 
strike  and  protested  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  strikers  were  prevented 
from  remaining  at,  or  returning  to,  work  by  the  turbulence  and  violence  of  a 
small  minority.  They  tried  in  vain  to  explain  why  they  should  charge 
miners  $2.75  for  a  keg  of  powder  which  they  (the  companies)  purchased 
for  90  cents.  They  endeavored  to  convince  the  public  that  "pluck-me" 
stores,  company  doctors,  and  exorbitant  house  rents  were  necessary  ad- 
juncts to  the  successful  operation  of  coal  mines;  that  they  were  really  a 
benefit  to  the  mineworkers  and  were  conducted  in  their  interest.  But  the 
public  was  not  deceived,  and  sympathy  for  the  strikers  and  indignation 
against  the  companies  were  expressed  on  every  hand.  As  the  strike  pro- 
gressed, as  the  supply  of  coat  diminished,  as  winter  approached  and  the  de- 
mand for  fuel  increased,  press  and  public  became  provoked  at  the  unrea- 
sonable and  unyielding  attitude  of  the  operators.  A  circumstance  which 
proved  of  incalculable  assistance  to  the  mineworkers  was  the  fact  that  a 
Presidential  election  was  to  take  place  on  November  5th.  Senator  Hanna, 
Chairman  of  the  National  Republican  Committee,  had  endeavored  to  avert 
the  strike ;  during  its  progress  he  had  made  repeated  efforts  to  bring  about 
an  amicable  settlement,  and  on  the  3rd  of  October  the  operators  offered  an 
increase  of  10$  in  the  wages  paid  prior  to  the  strike.  The  operators  did 
not  make  this  proposition  directly  to  the  mineworkers,  but  notice  of  it  was 
posted  in  conspicuous  places  about  the  mines.  The  proposal  of  the  opera- 
tors was  unacceptable  for  the  reason  that  no  promise  or  guarantee  was  given 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  367 

that  the  increased  wages  would  Ix;  paid  for  any  definite  period,  and  no  pro- 
vision was  made  for  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  powder,  the  alxilition  of  the 
company  stores,  the  discontinuance  of  company  doctors,  or  the  semi- 
monthly payment  of  wages,  all  of  which  had  been  demanded  as  conditions 
of  settlement.  As  a  consequence,  the  offer  was  rejected  and  the  strike  con- 
tinued. About  the  2Oth  of  October  the  operators  withdrew  the  notices 
embodying  their  first  proposition,  and  substituted  for  them  notices  in  which 
it  was  proposed  to  grant  a  10^  increase  in  wages,  to  reduce  the  price  of  pow- 
der,1 to  pay  wages  semi-monthly  in  cash,  and  to  adjust  some  of  the  other 
grievances  against  which  the  men  so  bitterly  complained.  This  latter 
proposition,  while  not  all  to  which  the  mineworkers  IxHieved  themselves  en- 
titled, nevertheless  afforded  some  relief  from  the  intolerable  conditions 
which  had  formerly  prevailed,  and  when  submitted  to  the  executive  com- 
mittees of  the  miners'  organization,  it  was  accepted.  \Vork  was  resumed 
on  October  29th. 

In  deciding  to  instruct  the  miners  to  resume  work  the  officers  of  th>- 
union  were  confident  that  the  victory  achieved  would  result  in  building  up 
among  the  anthracite  men  a  strong,  compact  organi/atiou.  and  they  were 
imbued  with  the  hope  that  a  year  later  the  oj>erators  would  enter  into  con- 
tractual relations  with  the  union.  In  thi>  h<>j>e  of  recognition  they  were 
disappointed,  but  the  organization  grew  in  numerical  strength,  and  within 
a  short  time  after  the  strike  practically  every  man  and  boy  in  the  anthra 
cite  fields  was  enrolled  as  a  nieinlxT  of  the  I 'nited  Mine  \V«>rkers  <'t 
America. 


1  'I  In-  reduction  in  the  puce  of  po\v«jer.  it   ss;is  under*!-""!,   \\;is  t"  In-  i.ikm  <-m 
the  advance  in  wages. 


CHAPTER  XLII 
THE  STRIKE  DECLARED 

Labor  Problem  in  Anthracite  Region  not  Settled  in  1900.  Attempt  to  Disrupt  the 
Union.  Stockades,  Coal  Depots,  and  Washeries.  The  Local  Bosses,  the  Railroad 
Presidents,  and  the  Financiers.  Organized  Labor's  Struggle  for  Existence.  The  In- 
vitation to  a  Joint  Conference.  The  Refusal  of  the  Railroad  Presidents.  The  Sha- 
mokin  Convention.  Intermediation  of  the  National  Civic  Federation.  The  Scranton 
Meeting.  The  Offer  of  Arbitration.  The  Railroad  President  and  the  "Eminent  Prel- 
ates." The  Hazleton  Convention.  The  Strike  Declared. 

'"PHE  coal  strike  of  1900,  while  resulting  in  a  victory  for  the  men,  did 
not  solve  the  problem  of  the  proper  relation  between  labor  and  capital 
in  the  anthracite  field.  Instead  of  fairly  meeting  the  men  face  to  face  and 
arranging  by  joint  agreement  the  wages,  hours  of  labor,  and  conditions  of 
work  to  prevail  in  the  region,  the  operators  simply  posted  notices  upon  their 
breakers  and  towers,  and  the  men  accepted  the  concessions  thus  announced. 
There  was  no  meeting  between  representatives  of  the  two  sides  and  no 
formal  treaty  was  made.  The  concessions  were  wrung  from  the  operators 
under  the  stress  of  a  political  campaign  and  were  silently  accepted  by  the 
mineworkers  under  advice  of  their  union. 

It  was  felt  by  both  sides  that  the  struggle  was  not  conclusive.  Just 
as  the  American  colonies  secured  their  independence  in  the  Revolutionary 
War,  but  did  not  secure  its  confirmation  until  the  War  of  1812,  so  the  an- 
thracite mineworkers  of  Pennsylvania  gained  their  liberty  in  1900,  but  did 
not  firmly  establish  it  until  1902. 

The  great  railroad  corporations  owning  and  operating  mines  in  the 
anthracite  region  were  in  1900  officered  by  men  who  had  no  sympathy 
with  the  principles  and  purposes  of  trade  unionism.  They  had  no  eyes  to 
see,  nor  sense  to  appreciate,  the  achievements  of  the  union  in  raising  the 
standard  and  improving  the  calibre  of  the  men  employed  in  and  about  the 

(368) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  36) 

mines,  and  they  could  not  realize  or  discern  the  new  spirit  of  independence 
and  hopefulness  infused  into  the  mineworkers  by  their  organization.  To 
them  the  union  was  nothing  but  a  fighting  machine  to  be  fought,  and  the 
demands  of  the  union,  nothing  but  an  increase  in  wages  and  a  reduction  in 
dividends.  The  union  seemed  to  prevent  them  from  running  their  business 
as  they  saw  fit,  from  exercising  despotic  sway  over  the  lives  of  their  tens 
of  thousands  of  workers.  The  men  in  charge  of  these  vast  industries  were 
trained  in  the  school  of  unorganized  labor.  They  understood  the  art  of 
obtaining  work  for  low  wages,  but  they  utterly  failed  to  comprehend  the 
new  spirit  which  would  resist  oppression  at  no  matter  what  cost  in 
suffering  and  privation.  The  ideal  of  these  men  to  whom  the  an- 
thracite coal  industry  of  the  country  was  entrusted  was  the  annihila- 
tion of  the  union,  its  destruction  root  and  branch.  In  the  past  the 
operators  had  destroyed  the  miners'  unions,  and  what  had  been  done 
once  could  surely  be  done  again. 

The  aggressive  policy  of  the  ojK'rators  was  evident  from  the  first.  I  in 
mediately  after  the  strike  of  1900,  stockades  were  built  about  many  <>f  the 
mines, depots  were  established  for  the  storage  of  coal,  \vasheries  were  opened 
in  many  places,  and  preparations  were  made  for  the  battle  which  was  bound 
to  come.  The  efforts  of  the  union  to  better  the  conditions  of  the  \\oikincn 
were  resisted  at  every  jx)int,  and  the  bosses  discouraged  the  mineworkers 
from  joining  the  organization  or  remaining  members  of  it.  Agents  <>!  the 
companies  circulated  freely  among  the  unionists,  and  records  nf  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  organization  were  immediately  available  to  the  presidents 
of  the  roads.  The  minor  officials  and  petty  bosses,  men  skilled  in  the  ex 
ploitation  of  labor,  constantly  sent  reports  to  their  superiors  .  .f  the  alleged 
misdeeds  of  the  unionists;  and  the  antagonistic  spirit  ot  the  men  in  control 
of  this  great  industry  was  whetted  by  misleading  accounts  of  the  -upp-^rd 
doings  of  the  United  Mine  Workers. 

The  desire  on  the  ]>art  of  the  great  railway  presidents  to  mv< 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America  in  a  contest  which  \\"nld  mean  r 
feat  and  dissolution,  was  ap|>arently  shared  by  men  -.)  evci 


370  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

nance  and  power.  There  is  growing  up  in  these  United  States  a  small  body 
of  multi-millionaires,  men  exorbitantly  rich  and  tremendously  powerful, 
but  apparently  without  those  ideals  of  free  and  democratic  government 
which  should  be  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  every  American  citizen. 
The  coal  strike  of  1902  seems  to  have  been  merely  the  first  battle  in  a  de- 
structive war  to  be  waged  by  the  greatest  monopolists  of  the  country  against 
the  democratic  organization  of  trade  unionism.  The  battle  was  more  than 
a  struggle  between  operators  and  miners.  It  was  rather  a  gigantic  con- 
test between  organized  and  concentrated  wealth  upon  the  one  side,  and  or- 
ganized labor,  extending  to  every  section  and  every  industry  in  the  country 
upon  the  other.  The  attempt  to  defeat  and  disrupt  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  was  apparently  only  a  part  of  a  much  larger  program 
— the  defeat  and  destruction  of  all  the  trade  unions  in  the  country. 

In  contrast  to  this  the  attitude  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  was  one  of 
conciliation  and  peace.  In  1900  the  men  accepted  the  concession,  which 
was  flung  at  them  rather  than  granted  to  them.  In  1901  the  union  again 
maintained  peace  by  a  continuance  of  the  agreement  of  1900.  In  an  inter- 
view held  in  1901,  in  which  President  Thomas  of  the  Erie  Railroad,  Senator 
Hanna,  the  Presidents  of  the  Anthracite  Districts  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers,  and  I,  took  part,  it  was  agreed  that  the  conditions  of  1900  should 
be  maintained,  and  the  representatives  of  the  Mine  Workers  left  the  confer- 
ence with  the  hope,  if  not  the  anticipation,  that  the  union  would  be  ulti- 
mately recognized.  These  hopes,  however,  were  doomed  to  be  unfulfilled. 

In  the  following  year,  1902,  every  attempt  consistent  with  the  preser- 
vation of  dignity  was  made  by  the  representatives  of  the  union  to  secure  a 
joint  conference  with  the  operators  in  order  that  a  strike  might  be  avoided. 
On  February  I4th,  1902,  the  officials  of  the  Aline  Workers'  Union 
addressed  a  letter  to  the  various  railroad  presidents  asking  for  a  joint  con- 
ference between  operators  and  miners  to  be  held  in  Scranton  on  the  1 2th  day 
of  March.  This  request  was  unanimously  refused  by  the  operators,  who 
claimed  that  "there  cannot  be  two  masters  in  the  management  of  business" 
and  stated  their  opposition  to  any  agreement  or  arrangement  with  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  371 

union.  The  replies  of  the  operators  further  attacked  the  union  and  held 
it  responsible  for  the  local  strikes  which  had  occurred  during  the  last  two 
years  and  which  had  really  been  traceable  to  the  failure  of  the  operators 
to  meet  the  representatives  of  the  union  and  settle  grievances  amicably. 

Upon  the  refusal  of  the  operators  to  meet  them  in  joint  conference, 
the  mineworkers,  in  convention  at  Shatnokin,  formulated  a  series  of  de- 
mands to  be  presented  to  the  operators.  The  increase  in  the  cost  of  living 
had  rendered  of  no  effect  the  advances  conceded  in  1900,  and  the  Mine 
Workers  demanded  a  twenty  per  cent,  increase  in  pay  for  men  paid  by  the 
piece,  a  corresponding  increase  in  the  shape  of  a  reduction  in  hours  for  men 
working  by  the  day,  the  weighing  of  the  coal,  and  the  incorporation  of  those 
reforms  in  an  agreement  with  the  union.  On  March  22,  by  direction  of 
the  Mine  Workers'  convention,  a  telegram  was  sent  to  the  railroad  presi- 
dents, asking  them  to  meet  the  representatives  of  the  mineworkers  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  grievances.  An  immediate  strike  seemed  unavoid- 
able, but  as  a  result  of  the  intermediation  of  the  National  Civic  Federation, 
a  conference  was  arranged  tat  ween  the  representatives  of  the  miners  and  of 
the  o|>erators.  An  interview  was  accordingly  held  on  the  jnth  o!  March, 
and  action  was  delayed  by  the  miners  for  a  month  in  the  ho|>e  of  reaching 
an  agreement.  During  this  month,  the  National  C'ivic  Federation  made 
every  jx>ssib!e  effort  to  bring  about  a  satisfactory  adjustment  and  urged 
upon  the  ojxrrators  the  necessity  of  making  some  concessions.  Public 
opinion,  as  reflected  in  the  various  newspapers  of  the  country,  also  ad- 
vised this  course.  The  operators,  however,  remained  obstinate,  and  at  the 
second  meeting  with  the  representatives  of  tin-  mine  workers  again  refused 
to  make  any  concessions  whatsoever  or  to  grant  the  slightest  part  oi  the  de- 
mands made  upon  them.  The  officials  <,f  the  I'tiion.  \\hile  reali/mg  the 
justice  of  their  j>osition.  offered  to  < -.  •mproniise  their  original  demands  by 
accenting  a  io>'  instead  of  a  JoV  increase,  and  a  nine-hour  instead  oi  an 
eight-hour  dav.  This  iiolicv  was  dictated  not  In  har  of  losing  the  strike, 

•  *>  f  I  9 

but   in  order  to  avert   the  terrible  suffering   \\btch.   it    \\as  clearly    loieseen 
would  inevitably  result  from  the  desperate  conflict.      The  pcacelul  attitude 


372  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

of  the  union,  however,  was  mistaken  for  weakness  and  cowardice,  and  each 
attempt  at  conciliation  increased  the  obduracy  of  the  railway  presidents. 

Up  to  the  final  moment,  the  mineworkers  made  every  reasonable  effort 
to  avert  hostilities.  The  justice  of  the  men's  demands  was  subsequently 
conceded,  at  least  in  part,  by  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Labor,  by 
the  Award  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  and  even  by  the 
President  of  the  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  Company,  by  Mr.  Baer  himself. 
During  the  negotiations,  however,  the  operators  refused  to  concede  a  single 
point  and  insisted  upon  the  men  surrendering  their  whole  position.  The 
president  of  the  miners'  union  in  conjunction  with  the  district  presidents 
had  been  empowered  to  call  a  strike,  but  it  was  felt  that  no  step  should  be 
taken  without  the  consent  of  the  men,  expressly  given  in  convention,  and 
without  the  fullest  opportunity  being  afforded  to  the  operators  to  arrange 
matters  upon  a  satisfactory  basis.  On  the  8th  of  May  the  representa- 
tives of  the  Mine  Workers,  with  a  lingering  hope  of  averting  the  impend- 
ing strike,  sent  a  telegram  to  the  railroad  presidents,  offering  to  submit 
their  demands  to  the  arbitration  of  a  committee  of  five  persons  selected  by 
the  Industrial  Branch  of  the  National  Civic  Federation,  or,  if  that  proposi- 
tion were  unacceptable,  to  a  committee  composed  of  Archbishop  Ireland, 
Bishop  Potter,  and  one  other  person  whom  these  two  might  select.  This 
offer  of  arbitration  was  also  unanimously  refused,  President  Baer  of  the 
Reading  Coal  and  Iron  Company  declaring  that  "anthracite  mining  is  a 
business,  and  not  a  religious,  sentimental,  or  academic  proposition,"  adding, 
"I  could  not,  if  I  would,  delegate  this  business  management  to  even  so 
highly  a  respectable  body  as  the  Civic  Federation,  nor  can  I  call  to  my  aid 
as  experts  in  the  mixed  problem  of  business  and  philanthropy  the  eminent 
prelates  you  have  named."  But  neither  Mr.  Baer  nor  any  of  the  other  rail- 
way presidents  suggested  arbitrators  more  acceptable  to  them. 

On  the  9th  day  of  May,  the  District  Executive  Committee  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers,  assembled  at  Scranton,  after  having  exhausted  all 
efforts  to  bring  about  an  amicable  settlement  with  the  operators,  ordered 
a  temporary  suspension  of  mining  to  take  place  on  May  I2th,  and  called 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  377 

a  convention  of  delegates  to  meet  in  Ilazleton  on  the  141)1  of  May  to  de- 
termine whether  the  suspension  should  he  made  permanent.  In  the  call 
for  the  convention  it  was  specifically  requested  that  the  delegates,  when 
elected  by  the  various  locals,  he  instructed  to  vote  either  for  or  against 
a  strike.  It  was  important,  as  it  always  should  he.  that  the  strike 
if  declared,  should  represent  the  true  and  actual  attitude  of  the  men  who 
were  to  hear  the  brunt  and  burden  of  the  conflict.  Even  after  the  conven- 
tion met  on  May  i^th,  hope  was  not  entirely  abandoned  that  a  strike  could 
be  averted.  The  National  Civic  Federation,  as  well  as  a  number  of  men 
acting  in  the  public  interest,  made  noble  efforts  to  avert  the  threatened 
calarpity,  but  no  word  came  from  the  oj)erators  and  no  concessions  were 
made  by  them.  On  the  eve  of  the  conflict,  one  of  the  railway  presidents 
predicted  that,  come  what  might,  the  men  would  not  strike,  but  would  su!>- 
mit  to  any  rebuff.  For  my  part,  I  was  still  opposed  to  the  declaration  of 
a  strike  at  this  time  if  it  could  j>ossibly  be  avoided,  despite  the  provocation 
which  the  miners  had  received  from  the  ojx^rators.  I  foresaw  that  the  con-, 
flict  would  be  long  and  severe,  and  I  hoped  that  it  might  be  averted  until 
the  late  fall,  when  the  men  could  have  struck  more  effectively.  I  was  even 
in  hopes  that  by  that  time  the  operators  would  sec  the  folly  of  their  course 
and  make  concessions,  which  would  have  preserved  the  milieu  orkers  and 
their  families,  as  well  as  the  general  public,  from  the  hardships  and  horrors 
of  a  protracted  conflict.  More  important,  however,  than  the  question  <>i 
strike  or  no  strike  was  that  «»f  the  control  of  the  union  by  it-  o\\  n  inemlKTs. 
I  made  as  strong  a  plea  as  possible  for  the  maintenance  "l  IH-.ICC  at  lca>t 
until  the  fall,  but  I  insisted  even  more  strenuously  that  the  nu-n  remain 
bound  by  their  instructions  and  vote  against  me.  n  they  had  l>cen  instructed 
by  the  vote  of  their  local  body  to  favor  an  immediate  strike.  A  large  num- 
l>er  of  delegates  adopted  my  view  of  the  advisability  of  postponing  the  con- 
flict, hut  the  majority  were  bound  by  instructions  from  their  locals  and  re 
mained  true  to  the  promises  which  had  been  made  to  their  constituents. 
By  a  vote  of  461  {  to  349^,  it  was  decided,  on  May  151!!.  to  continue  the 
suspension,  and  the  greatest  strike  in  American  history  was  declared. 


CHAPTER  XLIII 
THE  INDIANAPOLIS  CONVENTION. 

The  Early  Days  of  the  Strike.  Peaceable  Conduct.  The  Strike  of  the  Steam  Men. 
Attempts  at  Conciliation.  The  Investigation  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor.  Distress 
in  the  Anthracite  Region.  The  Indianapolis  Convention.  The  Preservation  of  the 
Union  and  The  Sanctity  of  Contracts.  The  Miners  Maintain  Faith. 

"'HE  news  of  the  declaration  of  the  strike  came  as  a  shock  to  the  coitn- 
*  try,  although  a  labor  conflict  had  seemed  inevitable  in  view  of  the  un- 
yielding and  uncompromising  attitude  assumed  by  the  operators.  The  pub- 
lic had  hoped  against  hope  that  some  general  arrangement  could  be  reached 
by  which  the  strike  might  be  averted. 

At  the  time  of  the  calling  of  the  strike,  it  was  confidently  predicted  on 
many  sides  that  the  contest  would  be  of  short  duration.  The  union  was 
known  to  be  without  large  funds,  and  the  ability  of  the  miners  to  hold  out 
was  greatly  underestimated.  Many  of  the  papers  opposed  to  the  organiza- 
tion stated  that  the  strike  would  not  last  for  more  than  five  or  six  weeks 
and  that  by  the  first  of  July,  at  the  latest,  it  would  begin  to  disintegrate. 

These  hopes  were  doomed  to  be  shattered.  The  strike,  like  all  great 
movements,  began  in  a  quiet,  noiseless  manner  and  continued  for  many 
weeks  without  incidents  of  note.  The  anticipations  of  violence  were  not 
realized,  and  the  men  showed  great  wisdom  in  maintaining  unbroken  peace. 
The  officials  of  the  union  urged  the  members  to  exercise  absolute  caution, 
to  abstain  from  contests  or  contact  of  any  sort  with  the  coal  and  iron  po- 
lice, and  to  refrain  entirely  from  drunkenness  or  street  brawls.  Thousands 
of  members  took  the  pledge  of  total  abstinence  during  the  strike,  and  peace 
reigned  throughout  the  region.  There  was  nothing  to  indicate  that  a  great 
struggle  was  going  on.  The  men  remained  quietly  at  their  homes,  cultivat- 
ing sometimes  a  little  garden  patch,  making  necessary  repairs  about  the 

(374) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  3-5 

houses,  or  engaging  in  baseball  games  and  other  sports.  The  breaker  boys, 
many  of  them  for  the  first  time  in  their  lives,  enjoyed  an  uninterrupted  holi- 
day, and  play  took  the  place  of  work.  From  the  very  start,  a  number  of 
miners  felt  the  pinch  of  want,  but  their  needs  were  relieved  by  the  generosity 
of  their  neighbors,  and  the  spirit  of  brotherliness  and  reciprocal  help  for  a 
long  time  prevented  any  suffering. 

In  1901  the  engineers,  firemen,  and  pumpmen  had  desire;  1  to  strike 
owing  to  the  excessive  hours  which  they  were  obliged  to  work.  These  men 
were  employed  for  twelve  hours  a  day,  and  on  alternate  Sundays,  when  the 
shift  changed,  they  were  compelled  to  work  uninterruptedlv  for  twenty-four 
hours:  The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  had  promised  that  if  they 
postponed  their  strike,  the  organization  would  assist  them,  and  accordingly. 
in  the  early  part  of  June,  the  engineers,  firemen,  and  pumpmen  were  called 
out  upon  strike. 

Much  unjust  criticism  has  l>ccn  directed  against  the.  official*  of  tin- 
Mine  Workers,  and  especially  against  myself,  for  calling  out  the  steam  men. 
We    were   accused    of    attempting    to    "hold    up"    the   operator*,    and    ii 
was    claimed    that    the   steam    men,    in    striking,    demerit d    their    posts    of 
duty  and  engaged  in  a  sympathetic  strike  with   the  miners.     The  truth. 
however,   is  that    the  pumpmen,   engineers,   and   firemen   were  called   out 
in    their    own    interests    absolutely,    by    their    own    request,    and    for    tin- 
sole    purpose    of    removing    grievances    against    \\hich    they    alone    coin 
plained   and  against   which   some  of  them   had    inaugurated   an    ind<-;>md 
cut   but    unsuccessful    strike   the   year    before.      The    |>ositi<»t:    which    the; 
held    was   not   a    jx>st   of   duty,    but    a   post    of   contract.        I  he   obligation 
of   the  steam   men   to  the   companies    was    not    like   the    relation    oi 
dicrs  to  the  army  in  which  they  enlist  or  sailors  to  the  na       of  \\lmh  t!u 
form  a  j>art,  but  was  merely  a  contractual  relation  \\hich  in:- 
natcd  at  the  will  of  either  party,   there  bein^  n«  •    i-ivemrnt    1 
steam  men  and  the  operator*,  obli^atin^  them  t"  W-T!V  lor  air 
Mad  the  operators  desired  to  reduce  W.-IJM-S  they 
steam  men  without  compunction,  and  the  right  to  strike  should  have  l>con 


376  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

frankly  conceded  to  the  steam  men  when  they  desired  to  better  their  condi- 
tions. It  was  realized  that  to  call  out  these  men  suddenly  and  without  suf- 
ficient notice  to  the  companies,  would  mean  the  destruction  of  many  valua- 
ble properties  by  the  flooding  of  the  mines.  Consequently,  the  steam  men 
were  not  called  out  for  some  time,  ten  days  warning  being  given  to  the  op- 
erators in  order  that  no  calamity  might  ensue.  The  steam  men  were  or- 
dered to  strike  only  in  case  their  own  demands  were  not  granted,  and  no 
provision  was  made  that  the  demands  of  the  miners  themselves  should  be 
conceded  before  the  steam  men  returned  to  work. 

As  the  strike  progressed,  the  public  evinced  a  keen  interest  in  its  out- 
come, and  attempts  were  made  at  intermediation  by  various  public-spirited 
citizens.  Marcus  A.  Hanna,  United  States  Senator  from  Ohio,  was  es- 
pecially active  in  this  direction.  In  the  course  of  several  months  no  stone 
was  left  unturned  to  bring  the  operators  to  a  fitting  sense  of  their  respon- 
sibilities to  the  public,  but  in  these  endeavors,  Senator  Hanna,  as  well  as  the 
National  Civic  Federation,  which  was  also  active,  failed  completely.  By 
the  early  part  of  June  the  price  of  coal  began  to  rise  and  consumers  began 
to  complain.  Under  the  direction  of  President  Roosevelt,  Carroll  D. 
Wright,  United  States  Commissioner  of  Labor,  went  to  New  York  where 
statements  as  to  the  causes  and  the  status  of  the  strike  were  made  to  him  by 
the  railway  presidents  and  myself.  The  rqx>rt  of  Commissioner  Wright 
justified  in  part  the  demands  of  the  men,  but  was  not  made  public  until 
much  later,  and  no  action  was  ever  taken  upon  it. 

When  the  strike  was  declared,  on  the  15th  of  May,  many  of  the  an- 
thracite mineworkers  believed  that  help  would  be  forthcoming  from  their 
brothers  in  the  bituminous  fields.  About  150,000  men  and  boys  in  the  an- 
thracite regions  had  been  thrown  idle  by  the  strike,  and  these,  together  with 
the  miners  of  West  Virginia,  who  were  also  on  strike,  constituted  one-half 
of  the  membership  of  the  national  union.  It  was  therefore  hoped  by  many 
of  the  anthracite  workers  that  the  bituminous  men  might  be  called  out  in 
order,  by  means  of  a  general  suspension  of  mining  throughout  the  country, 


ORGANIZED  LABOR 


377 


to  force  the  hand  of  the  operators.  The  President  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  is  compelled,  according  to  the  constitution,  to  call  a 
special  convention  upon  the  demand  of  any  five  district  organizations. 
When,  therefore,  I  received  requests  from  five  districts,  I  issued  a  call  for 
a  national  convention  of  all  mineworkers  to  meet  in  Indianapolis  upon  the 
1 7th  of  July. 

By  the  time  of  the  convocation  of  the  Indianapolis  convention,  distress 
had  already  begun  to  show  itself  in  the  anthracite  region.  Many  of  the 
men,  who,  two  months  before,  had  entered  the  strike  in  high  hoi>es.  had  long 
since  been  reduced  to  their  last  j>enny  and  had  pawned  or  sold  all  their  small 
valuables.  Many  of  the  strikers,  especially  among  the  foreign  element, 
had  gone  to  other  parts  of  the  country,  or  to  Kurope,  but  large  numbers  still 
remained,  and  these  now  began  to  feel  the  pangs  of  hunger.  I'm  ;hc  ques- 
tion uppermost  in  the  minds  of  the  men  was  the  winning  of  the  strike  and 
the  manner  of  assistance  they  should  receive  from  the  soft  coal  men.  The 
bituminous  miners  were  in  full  sympathy  uith  the  sufferings  <»t"  their  broth- 
ers in  Pennsylvania  and  \\crc  willing  to  make  any  sacrifices  in  order  to  aid 
them.  Some  of  the  delegates  argued  that  a  complete  suspension  ot  ;i!l 
miners  throughout  the  country  would  mean  sjK-edy  victory  for  the  anthra- 
cite men.  since  the  railroads  \\ould  l>e  obliged  to  surrender  as  a  result  oi  tin- 
lack  of  fuel.  The  men  in  the  soft  coal  fields  \\ould  undoubtedly  have  struck 
in  sympathy  but  for  one  deterring  fact. 

This  fact  \\as  the  existence  of  a  contiact  bet.  \een  them  and  '.he  bitumi- 
nous operators.      !-"or  se\eral   vt.-'fs   the  miners  and  »]xrut"i-- 
joint  convention,  agreed  u|»  n  a  scale.  <>f  wage-,  ar.d  n\ed  condition^  .1  tin 
ployment,  the  contracts  so  made  bring"  binding   f"i'  the  |*T!«>d  "t  «r,c  year. 
To  strike  i;:    lulv.    !'/)_'.  the  s«>ft  coal  n:incr>  v.  "u!d  have  been  .<b'igcd   to 
break  contract-;  v.  hich  did  not    terminate  bef«.re    \]>i:l.    (•;<'.-;.      It    u.«-  .n 
giie-l.  as  in  the  steel  -tri'.c  "f   i'i"i.  that  \\here  the  hie  •  •!  the  un:<-'i  v  a>  at 
slake,  nu  agreement  si-....u!d  be  jeg  irded.  »ince  the  duiv  ..f  <elf  j.re-crvat;<.;i 
takes  preccJer.ee  over  the  >ar.itit\  oi  ar,y  c««ntr.ict.     It  \va>  further  held  that 
a  mere  suspension  of  work  \\ithutit  a  demand  for  a  change  in  wages  or  con- 


378  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ditions  would  not  be  a  strike  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  word,  since  by  the 
contract  the  men  were  obliged  to  work  only  at  a  certain  rate  of  pay,  but  not 
for  any  particular  number  of  days.  It  was  also  represented  that  the  attack 
of  the  operators  upon  the  anthracite  miners  was  but  the  beginning  of  a  con- 
certed effort  to  disrupt  the  entire  organization  of  mineworkers  and  that,  if 
the  anthracite  men  lost  their  strike,  it  would  be  but  a  short  time  before  the 
bituminous  miners  would  also  be  crushed.  The  miners,  however,  did  not 
pay  the  slightest  attention  to  what  they  regarded  as  quibbles,  but  insisted 
absolutely  upon  the  maintenance  of  their  agreements.  Even  the  anthra- 
cite delegates  adopted  this  view,  believing  that  it  was  the  part  of  honor 
for  the  soft  coal  men  to  stand  by  their  contracts,  though  as  a  result  the 
union  might  be  shattered  and  destroyed.  In  my  speech  before  the  conven- 
tion I  took  the  same  stand  and  urged  the  men  not  to  break  their  agreements. 
The  honor  of  trade  unionism,  based  on  the  willingness  of  organized  work- 
ingmen  to  make  sacrifices  in  order  to  maintain  the  absolute  integrity  of 
their  contracts,  was  at  stake,  and  the  friends  of  organized  labor  looked  anx- 
iously to  Indianapolis  for  signal  proof  that  workingmen  consider  their  con- 
tracts sacred.  By  a  unanimous  vote  the  convention,  consisting  both  of 
anthracite  and  bituminous  delegates,  decided  that  the  existing  agreements 
should  be  kept  inviolate  and  that  no  strike  should  be  declared  in  violation  of 
the  annual  contracts,  no  matter  how  strong  the  temptation  or  how  pressing 
the  need. 


CHAPTER  XLIV 
THE  INTERVENTION  OF  THE  PRESIDENT 

The  Bituminous  Miners  Provide  the  Sinews  of  War.  Over  Two  and  One-half 
Million  Dollars  Contributed.  Delay  and  Discontent.  The  Critical  Period.  The  Shen- 
andoah  Riot.  The  Campaign  of  Vilification.  Exaggerated  Accounts  <>f  Violence. 
The  Coal  and  Tron  Police.  Sympathy  of  the  Public.  Contributions  to  the  Strike 
Fund.  The  Price  of  Coal  Rises.  Suffering  of  the  Poor.  The  Operators  Still  have 
"Nothing  to  Arbitrate."  The  Lengthening  of  the  Contest.  The  Irresistible  Force  and 
the  Immovable  Body.  The  Intervention  of  the  President.  The  Third  of  October. 
The  Operators  still  Unyielding.  The  Calling  out  of  the  Pennsylvania  National  Guard. 
The  Surrender  of  the  Operators.  The  End  of  the  Strike. 

THE  Indianapolis  convention  did  not  result  in  a  suspension  <  f  \\ork  by 
the  soft  coal  miners,  but  action  was  taken  that  proved  of  threat er  IKIIC- 
fit.  The  delegates  voted  unanimously  against  a  sympathetic  strike,  but 
voted  with  e*|uul  unanimity  to  extend  moral  and  financial  sup|x»rt  to  the 
anthracite  mineworkers  until  such  time  as  victory  should  In-  achieved,  <»r 
the  mine  owners  should  agree  to  submit  the  matters  in  dispute  1<>  the  arbitra- 
ment of  an  impartial  tribunal. 

I'.v  this  action  the  various  meml>ers  of  the  I'nitcd   Mine  \\i»rkcrs  of 
America  in  the  bituminous  coal    fields    pledged    themselves    t«»    suWrilx: 
weekly  either  one  dollar  or  ten  per  cent.  <>!"  their  \\eckly  earnin-:-.  t<>  a  lind 
to  l>e  used  f«>r  the  assistance  of  the  anthracite  strikers;  and  tin 
the  organization  agreed  to  pay  thirty  five  per  cent    <>!  their  > 
-nine  puriM.se.      In  this  manner,  during  a  pen.nl  ,,f  sixteen  wo-ks  the  em 
mous  sum  <»f  .Sj.r»45^J4.4_'  was  collected,  and  there  can  be  m>  d-« 
the  contributions  would  have  continued  at  an  incua.sin-  rate, 
initiation  of  hostilities  been  delayed.     The  bituminous  m.mrs 
into  the  relief  fund  an  average  <>f  !n>m  $7.00  In  SK..OO  |KT  m: 
no  time  was  there  any  dis^ition  m  xvilhhohl   froni  the  anllirantc  inn 

(379) 


380  QRGANIZED    LABOR 

workers  the  assistance  so  generously  and  spontaneously  given ;  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  toward  the  close  of  the  strike  many  local  unions  voluntarily  in- 
creased their  donations,  and  in  some  instances  members  offered  to  contrib- 
ute twenty-five  per  cent,  of  their  gross  earnings. 

The  action  of  the  Indianapolis  convention  in  refusing  to  vote  in  favor 
of  a  sympathetic  strike  and  in  providing,  instead,  for  financial  support,  ap- 
peared to  meet  with  the  strongest  possible  commendation  from  the  press 
and  the  public.  The  press,  however,  in  its  endorsement  of  our  proceed- 
ings, unintentionally  over-estimated  the  amount  of  money  which  would  be 
contributed  to  the  anthracite  men,  and  it  under-estimated  the  time  that 
would  elapse  before  collections  and  arrangements  for  distribution  could  be 
made.  The  money  voted  by  the  bituminous  miners  was  not  paid  into  the 
treasury  until  a  full  month  after  the  adjournment  of  the  convention.  This 
delay  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  men  in  the  bituminous  regions  receive 
their  wages  semi-monthly,  and  the  money  earned  in  the  las^  half  of  July 
was  not  paid  to  them  until  the  1 5th  day  of  August. 

In  calculating  the  amount  of  money  that  would  be  available)  for  dis- 
tribution, the  newspapers  estimated  that  each  person  on  strikeywould  re- 
ceive not  less  than  $5.00  per  week  during  the  continuance  ofihe  struggle. 
Such  claims,  of  course,  were  utterly  ridiculous,  involving,  as  they  would, 
an  expenditure  of  about  $3,500,000  per  month.  As  a  consequence  of  these 
extravagant  statements  the  striking  mine  workers  became  imbued  with  the 
hope,  if  not  the  absolute  belief,  that  they  were  actually  to  receive  this 
amount ;  and  when  these  payments  failed  to  materialize,  many  o<f  the  strikers 
were  seized  with  a  feeling  of  despondency,  and  mutterings  of  discontent 
were  heard  on  every  hand. 

During  the  first  week  of  August  a  crisis  was  reached.  The  agents  of 
the  companies,  taking  advantage  of  the  opportunity  temporarily  afforded 
them  by  this  loss  of  confidence,  circulated  rumors  among  the  strikers  to  the 
effect  that  the  money  contributed  by  the  bituminous  miners  was  being  with- 
held, if  not  actually  misappropriated.  I  am  fully  convinced  that  the  strike 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  58 1 

would  have  collapsed,  had  the  operators  at  this  time  opened  their  mines  and 
invited  the  strikers  to  return  to  work.  It  \\as  the  crucial  moment,  the  only 
time  during  the  long,  stubbornly  fought  contest  in  which  there  was  any 
sign  of  wavering.  The  operators,  evidently,  did  not  rcalixe  the  extent  of 
the  disaffection  in  the  ranks  of  the  strikers  and  failed  to  take  advantage  of 
the  opportunity  open  to  them. 

Following  this  period  a  riot  occurred  at  Shenandoah,  precipitated  by 
the  hasty  and  unnecessary  action  of  a  deputy  sheriff  in  firing  upon  a  crowd 
of  striking  mine  workers,  who.  incensed  by  this  action,  assaulted  him. 
Several  mineworkers  or  their  sympathizers,  who  came  to  the  sheriff's 
rescue,  and  a  merchant  were  seriously  injured,  the  merchant  subse- 
quently dying  from  the  effects  of  his  wounds.  This  violence,  following 
ujxju  a  period  of  tranquillity.  \\as  taken  up  i»y  the  h<--tile  JMYSS  and  grossly 
and  maliciously  exaggerated.  From  thi>  lime  on  there  aj>i>cared  daily,  in 
many  newspapers,  rejx)rts  of  assaults  and  riots,  many  of  \\hich  never  oc- 
curred. Street  brawls,  entirelv  unconnected  \\ilh  the  strike,  were  magni- 
fied and  distorted,  the  officials  of  the  union  were  charged  with  instigating 
violence,  and  the  statement  was  rei>catedly  made  that  a  reign  of  terror  pre- 
vailed throughout  the  region.  The  efforts  of  the  union  officials  to  maintain 
discipline,  to  inspire  confidence,  to  prevent  illegal  acts  among  the  150.000 
striking  men  and  boys  in  the  region  were  greatly  hamj>ered  by  a  torrent  of 
abuse  and  by  the  misrepresentation  of  tho.se  opposed  to  them. 

The  leaders  of  the  strike,  houevcr.  patiently  maintained  (heir  jH.siti.ui. 
plainly  and  honestly  stating  to  the  minc\\orkers  the  o-nditioii  «  f  the  treas- 
ury and  the  possibilities  of  relief;  thev  retrained  from  in.iknu;  extravagant 
promises  and  continued  to  encourage  the  nun  t"  maintain  a  «i!ent,  |>a^si\e 
struggle  until  the  very  end.  Offici;d  and  jt-.iMic  ]>r-  v  \\ere  issued. 

directing  the  strikers  to  refrain  from  deeds  ..f  \  r  <-\»-r  ->n  their 

guard  against  being  prou>kcd  into  the  cumm;- 

bring  discre<lit  UJHMI  them  or  would  alienate  the  s\ni;>ath;  -np|h.n  <o 

generously  given  to  them  by  the  public  and  by  the  \a>t  majority  of  the  news- 
papers. 


382  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

One  week  later  contributions  began  to  come  in,  and,  as  fast  as  funds 
were  received,  they  were  hurried  to  the  weaker  points  and  distributed  among 
those  most  in  need  or  most  likely  to  surrender.  Circular  letters  were  also 
addressed  to  each  o<f  the  local  unions,  explaining  the  delay  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  funds  and  instructing  relief  committees  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
money  should  be  expended.  At  no  time  during  the  strike  were  there  suf- 
ficient funds  to  provide  for  all  who  were  idle.  Men  who  had  bank  ac- 
counts, those  who  owned  property,  or  those  who  could,  in  any  way,  shift 
for  themselves,  were  required  to  subordinate  their  claims  to  the  more  press- 
ing wants  of  the  needier  and  less  provident.  There  is,  of  course,  a  certain 
injustice  in  thus  discriminating  against  men  who  have  been  saving  and 
economical,  but  in  a  strike  of  vast  magnitude,  involving  over  half  a  mil- 
lion men,  women,  and  children,  a  union  is  oftentimes  compelled  to  husband 
its  resources  and  to  provide  only  for  those  who  cannot  provide  for  them- 
selves and  who,  if  not  relieved,  will  be  forced  to  accept  the  alternative  of 
returning  to  work  on  the  employer's  terms  or  starving  t<j>  death. 

Meanwhile,  public-spirited  men  in  every  walk  of  life  renewed  their 
efforts  to  settle  the  strike.  The  hardships  suffeFetf  by  the  mineworkers 
also  found  answer  in  the  sympathy  o>f  the  public,  and  large  sums  of  money 
flowed  into  the  union  treasury.  These  contributions  came  from  all  classes 
and  from  all  ranks  of  society.  Occasionally  a  broker  in  a  New  York  office 
would  send  a  check,  with  a  request  that  his  name  be  not  made  public ;  in  like 
manner,  checks  for  various  amounts  came  from  manufacturers,  merchants, 
lawyers,  doctors,  ministers,  workingmen,  and  farmers.  Even  little  chil- 
dren sent  the  nickels  from  their  money  boxes,  and  the  widow's  mite  was 
added  to  swell  the  fund.  Of  course,  the  great  bulk  of  the  money  from 
other  sources  than  the  union  funds  came  from  the  organized  workers  in 
other  trades,  who  contributed  several  hundred  thousand  dollars.  Even  the 
toilers  of  foreign  lands  were  moved  by  the  tale  of  the  heroic  struggle  of 
the  anthracite  mineworkers,  and  money  was  received  from  England,  Wales, 
and  other  countries  where  men  had  similarly  struggled  in  their  efforts  to 
improve  conditions. 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  383 

As  the  summer  advanced  the  hardships  and  privations  of  the  great 
body  of  American  people,  especially  those  in  the  eastern  and  seaboard  states, 
sensibly  increased.  The  operators  had  stored  considerable  coal  during  the 
thirty  days'  truce  which  had  been  arranged  prior  to  the  inauguration  of  the 
strike,  but  with  each  week  the  visible  supply  diminished,  and  prices  mounted 
higher  and  higher.  Coal  that  could  formerly  be  purchased  for  six  dollars 
per  ton  was  now  selling  for  eight,  ten,  Iwche,  and  eventually  rose  to  aliove 
twenty  dollars.  The  effect  of  these  high  prices  was  felt  by  every  meml>er 
of  society;  the  burden  falling  most  heavily  upon  the  very  poor  in  the  great 
cities,  who  were  compelled  to  purchase  their  fuel  by  the  bushel  or  by  the 
pail,  in  many  instances  paying  at  the  rate  of  $30.00  per  ton.  Railroads  were 
obliged  to  discontinue  running  many  trains,  factories  closed  down,  and  men 
were  thrown  out  of  employment  in  various  industries;  the  cost  of  living  ap- 
preciably increased,  and  the  work  of  many  people  Ixxame  unremunerativc. 
The  scarcity  of  anthracite  coal  and  the  extortionate  prices  being  charged 
for  it  created  an  abnormal  demand  for  the  product  of  the  hituniinous  mines, 
and  as  a  consequence  the  price  of  soft  coal  rapidly  increased. 

As  a  result  there  was  a  fenr  of  coal  riots  in  the  city  of  New  Y«rk  and 
elsewhere — riots  in  comparison  with  which  the  bread  ri.'ts  ot   I.'>:i'!<>i'  and 
the  meat  riots  of  Xew  York's  Kast  Side  \\ould  have  !'a«led  int't  in^ignili- 
cancc.      Kvcn  the  more  responsible  members  ot   :•  iciety  occ; 
coal  by  force,  following,  in  this  instance,  the  example  <>f  the  railroad? 
in  many  cases  confiscated  coal  cut  rioted  I"  them  by  shipper-. 
ordinances  of  Xew  York  and  other  large  cities  \\ere  «'i»cnly 
the  cities  were  covered  with  a  pall  of  black  smoke. 
diminishing  supply  of  anthracite  n.al.   tin    health  auth"nt:e 
selves  powerless,  and  the  law  was  i.jx-nly  disregarded 

The  discomforts  and  inconveniences  r.i<lnrc<  the    jo-plr    of    the 

Eastern  states  during  the  months  of  Augu-t  and  Srptrmbrr  ' 
To  any  but  the  near-sighted.  h<> \\cvcr.  it  \\a>  i-\  ident  that  tin   |<M:! 
were  coming  were  infinitely  worse.      Had  r<>  n>; 
or  XovcinlxT.  had  the  strike  lastol  until   Dri-rmU-r  . 


384  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ships  would  have  been  beyond  endurance.  Despite  the  fact  that  winter  was 
approaching,  the  coal  operators  remained  singularly  stubborn  and  obdurate; 
they  showed  no  sign  of  yielding.  They  had  been  misled,  and  they  them- 
selves had  misled  the  public  repeatedly  throughout  the  conflict.  They  had, 
at  first,  declared  that  the  strike  would  not  take  place ;  when  it  did  come,  they 
maintained  that  it  would  not  last  more  than  a  few  weeks,  but  that  it  would 
collapse  and  coal  would  be  mined  by  the  first  of  August.  When,  however, 
tach  prediction  failed  of  fulfillment,  renewed  prophecies  were  made  with 
increased  confidence.  From  week  to  week  the  opening  of  the  mines  was 
postponed,  and  the  inevitable  dissolution  of  the  union,  so  often  and  so  con- 
fidently predicted,  was  prophesied  again  and  again.  Despite  the  suffering 
of  the  public,  the  presidents  of  the  great  railroads  in  control  of  the  coal  in- 
dustry refused  to  budge  an  inch.  Just  as  they  were  willing  to  have  the 
mines  flooded  and  destroyed  rather  than  grant  to  the  steam  men  a  reason- 
able reduction  in  hours,  so  they  were  willing  to  plunge  the  whole  country 
into  irremediable  distress  rather  than  acknowledge  for  a  moment  the  exis- 
tence of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
union,  from  the  very  beginning,  offered  arbitration  and  never  ceased  in  its 
efforts  to  arrange  for  an  amicable  adjustment.  These  efforts  were  sec- 
onded by  many  leading  men,  including  Senators  Hanna,  Quay,  Pen  rose, 
Platt,  Governor  Odell,  and  others.  Again  and  again,  the  miners  were 
buoyed  up  by  the  hope  of  an  early  and  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  diffi- 
culty, but  in  every  case  their  hopes  were  doomed  to  disappointment.  The 
letter  of  President  Baer,  in  which  he  said  that  the  welfare  of  the  working- 
men  would  be  cared  for,  not  by  the  agitators  but  by  the  Christian  men  to 
whom  God,  in  His  infinite  wisdom,  had  entrusted  the  property  interests  of 
the  country,  was  indicative  of  the  uncompromising  attitude  of  the  managers 
of  the  coal  properties.  These  men,  although  undoubtedly  conscientious  and 
sincere,  seemed  utterly  unable  to  comprehend  the  progress  that  had  been 
made  in  the  requirements,  thoughts,  and  aspirations  of  workingmen  during 
the  last  five  centuries.  The  cry  was  still  "We  have  nothing  to  arbitrate," 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  385 

and  the  claim  was  made  and  reiterated  that  only  the  violence  of  the  mine 
workers  prevented  the  reestablishment  of  industry  in  the  coal  regions. 

Nothing  could  be  more  significant  than  the  manner  in  which  the  oper- 
ators emphasized  every  disturbance  occurring  jn  the  anthracite  f.,-ld.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  there  was  a  number  of  clashes  l>et\veen  the  more  reck- 
less or  impetuous  strikers  and  the  more  irresponsible  of  the  coal  and  iron 
police,  hired  by  the  operators  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  their  mines.  Tes- 
timony before  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission  revealed  the  calibre 
of  many  of  these  defenders  of  the  sacred  right  of  property.  Seme  of  them 
were  men  of  good  character,  but  many  of  them  were  thug.*-,  recruited  from 
the  lowest  slums  of  the  great  cities,  uniformed,  armed,  and  invested  \\ith 
police  authority.  Some  were,  indeed,  the  nio-t  desperate  characters,  and  in 
the  case  of  one  man  the  Commission  al  solute!  v  reiuscd  to  allow  him  to  l>c 
cross-examined,  localise  of  his  own  shameless  acknowledgment  that  he 
was  a  crook,  a  thief,  and  a  confirmed  criminal.  There  were  several 
cases  of  wanton  assault  and  unprovoked  murder  by  the-e  coal  and  inn  ]*•- 
lice;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  instances  in  \\hich  violence  uas  done 
and  murder  committed  by  strikers,  or  by  men  who  claimed  io  bo  in  sympa- 
thy with  them.  It  is  utterly  imi>ossib1e  to  octroi  everv  act  and  deed  <>1 
every  single  individual  in  a  population  of  150,000  men  and  boy-',  who  have 
been  idle  for  months  and  mam  of  whom  are  on  the  verge  <>!  despair,  n  n«  •« 
of  actual  starvation.  I'.nl  the  claim  that  the  maj.'riiy  .  .t"  the  men  \\ere  pre- 
vented from  working  in  the  mines  by  tlie  l«-ree  .uv! 
noritv  was  uttcrlv  misleading,  utterly  fal-e.  and.  s  \\a-  snbs\«|uentl' 
easily  and  completely  disproved 

During  the  months  of    \ugn-t  and  September  i 
a  few  mines  and  washeries  in  various  part> 
statements  given  out  by  the  companies 
aggerated.  or  else  the  coal  produced  by  tin  in  mi 
been  unaccountably  lost  l*M>>rc  rcnch 
remained  one  of  tlie  unsolved  tny«tcrie< 
reported,  increased  steadily  with  each  Mircecdmg  day, 


386  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

mands  of  would-be  consumers  were  met  with  the  stereotyped  statement  that 
no  coal  was  being  received.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  whatever  the  pro- 
duction of  coal  by  washeries  and  by  mines,  the  output  was  much  below 
the  needs  of  the  community,  and  the  demand  for  fuel  became  daily  more 
pressing. 

Meanwhile,  the  coal  operators  remained  firm.  They  attributed  the  in- 
auguration of  the  strike  to  the  uncontrolled  ambitions  of  the  short-sighted, 
self-seeking  agitators;  its  continuance  they  attributed  to  the  violence  of  a 
small  minority  of  the  men,  who,  they  claimed,  terrorized  a  vast  majority; 
and  they  felt,  or  seemed  to  feel,  that,  if  the  public  suffered  for  lack  of  fuel, 
it  was  because  that  public,  in  its  generous  but  stupid  sympathy,  had  encour- 
aged the  striking  mineworkers.  The  serene  indifference  of  these  men  to 
the  demands  of  their  employees  and  to  the  pressing  needs  of  the  public,  is 
one  of  the  most  curious  anomalies  of  this  most  remarkable  of  contests.  All 
efforts  at  intermediation  were  met  by  a  determined  rebuff.  Week  after 
week  the  railway  presidents  met,  as  directors  of  the  Temple  Coal  and  Iron 
Company,  but  they  did  nothing  to  bring  the  strike  to  a  close.  Even  the 
prosecutions  brought  against  them  as  the  creators  of  a  trust  were  met  by 
the  same  stolid  indifference,  and  their  policy  of  masterly  inactivity  was  not 
shaken  even  by  the  concentrated  indignation  of  the  whole  people  or  by  the 
threats,  made  in  various  states,  of  legislation  seeking  to  control  the  industry. 
The  remarkable  power  of  the  union  to  continue  the  strike,  although  it  de- 
sired peace,  was  perfectly  evident.  The  ability  and  willingness  on  the  part 
of  the  operators  to  prolong  the  struggle  were  equally  clear.  The  strike 
had  resolved  itself  into  a  contest  in  which,  figuratively  speaking,  an  irre- 
sistible force  struck  an  immovable  body.  But  the  horror  of  the  situation 
lay  in  the  fact  that  between  the  two  great  powers,  one  struggling  for  the 
right  to  live,  the  other  animated  by  the  determination  to  be  alone  dominant 
— to  be  sole  master — there  stood  the  public,  suffering,  sensitive,  and  panic- 
stricken  at  the  approach  of  winter. 

At  this  critical  moment  the  President  of  the  United  States  intervened. 
There  seemed  no  possibility  of  reaching  the  operators  by  other  means ;  they 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  387 

refused  to  yield  to  advice  of  friend  or  threat  of  foe ;  they  appeared  utterly 
oblivious  of  the  demands  of  a  suffering  public.  President  Roosevelt,  how- 
ever, conscious  of  the  hardship  that  would  follow  in  the  wake  of  a  coal  fam- 
ine, sent  invitations  to  the  various  railroad  presidents,  to  the  presidents  of 
the  anthracite  district  unions,  and  to  myself,  to  meet  him  in  the  tcm{x>rary 
\Yhite  House  on  the  3rd  day  of  October.  This  meeting  has  become  his- 
toric. The  President,  in  stating  the  purpose  of  the  conference,  disclaimed 
any  right  or  duty  to  intervene  upon  legal  grounds  or  by  reason  of  any 
official  relation  to  the  situation ;  he  also  advised  against  a  discussion  of  the 
merits  of  the  case,  but  requested  both  parties  to  "meet  upon  the  common 
plane  of  the  necessities  of  the  public."  "I  appeal  to  your  patriotism."  Ik- 
concluded,  "to  the  spirit  that  sinks  personal  considerations  and  makes  indi 
vidual  sacrifices  for  the  common  good." 

The  address  of  the  President,  short  as  it  was,  could  not  but  arouse  his 
auditors  to  a  sense  of  the  grave  responsibility  resting  ujxm  them.  At  its 
conclusion,  I  stated  that  I  was  impressed  with  the  gravity  of  the  situation. 
and  I  proposed  on  1>ehalf  of  the  anthracite  mine  workers  that  all  matters 
in  dispute  Ix;  submitted  to  the  arbitration  of  a  tribunal  selected  by  the  Presi- 
dent. At  this  juncture  the  President  suggested  that  further  discussion  «»i 
the  matter  l>e  deferred  until  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  in  order  that  the 
operators  and  miners  might  think  the  situation  over  and  rojne  to  .-MI  under- 
standing. 

The  afternoon  meeting  was  one  of  the  most  astounding  events  <>i  the 
strike.      The  railway  olVici.ils.  disregarding  the  re-pics!  of  the  President  that 
the  merits  of  the  controversy  be  not  discussed,  laum-hed  forth  up"!i  a  series 
of  tirades  and  invectives  against  the  union  and   its  oiiuvrs.  wlr.rh  lett   r.<  • 
ground    for   discussion   <>r   conciliation.       I  ln->   abuse.    *  >   MJKII!; 
upon  the  organi/ation,  was  not  sjH>ntaneou<  or  instmcthe.  not   made  UI--M 
the  spur  of  the  momer.t.  but  was  read  from  r.nri'nlh   prepare.! 
which,  no  doubt,  had  U-eii  written  and  re  svntlen  and  -h,  .-i!d 
represented  the  cool  judgment  of  the  o;»erators. 
Magistrate  of  the  nation  did  not  in  the      a -t  restrain  s"tne  of  th< 


^    588  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

from  giving  way  to  unseemly  outbursts  of  feeling.  It  was  intimated  that 
the  President  had  failed  in  his  duty  toward  the  public  and  the  operators, 
and  one  of  the  speakers  ended  an  impassioned,  but  utterly  baseless  invective, 
by  a  demand  upon  the  President  that  he  do  his  duty.  The  union  was  de- 
nounced as  illegal,  and  a  large  number  of  cases  were  quoted  in  an  effort  to 
demonstrate  that  the  union  had  no  legal  status  and  should  be  prosecuted. 
Some  of  the  gentlemen  representing  the  anthracite  industry  did  not  limit 
themselves  to  their  carefully  prepared  statements,  but  injected  into  their 
reading  a  number  of  extemporaneous  remarks  bitterly  assailing  the  organi- 
zation of  the  United  Mine  Workers;  and,  instead  of  accepting  our  proposal 
of  peace  and  arbitration,  the  railway  officials  concluded  by  urging  that  the 
President  station  United  States  troops  in  the  anthracite  coal  fields. 

The  character  of  these  attacks  was  such  as  to  provoke  indignation,  but 
we  preferred  to  disregard  them,  and  I  limited  my  reply  to  an  acknowledg- 
ment that  there  had  been  some  violence,  which  I  regretted,  and  to  the  fur- 
ther statement  that  this  violence  had  been  exaggerated.  I  did  not,  however, 
desire  to  put  anything  in  the  way  of  a  reconciliation  with  the  operators 
therefore  refrained  from  replying  to  the  attacks  in  the  spirit  which  they  nat- 
urally aroused.  Instead,  I  submitted,  in  writing,  a  formal  proposition  for 
arbitration  and  pledged  its  acceptance  by  the  mine  workers. 

While  the  effort  of  the  President  to  bring  alx>ut  a  settlement  of  the 
strike  had  apparently  failed,  it  nevertheless  opened  the  way  for  an  ultimate 
adjustment.  The  attitude  of  the  operators  in  refusing  to  accept  the  media- 
tion or  the  arbitration  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  caused  a  wave 
of  indignation  to  sweep  over  the  country,  and  the  general  judgment  was 
that  the  wishes  of  the  Chief  Executive  should  be  regarded  and  peace  estab- 
lished. President  Roosevelt  continued  his  efforts  to  bring  the  strike  to  an 
end  and  on  the  6th  day  of  October  requested  me,  through  the  Hon.  Carroll 
D.  Wright,  Commissioner  of  Labor,  to  secure  the  return  of  the  men  to 
work.  The  assurance  was  given  that  after  mining  was  resumed  a  commis- 
sion would  be  appointed  to  investigate  the  conditions  of  life  and  labor  in 
the  anthracite  field,  and  that  when  the  report  and  recommendations  of  this 


ORGANIZHD    LABOR  389 

commission  were  received,  the  President  would  do  all  in  his  power  to  in- 
duce the  ojK-'rators  to  accept  its  findings.  This  request  was  taken  under  ad- 
visement, but  after  most  careful  thought  I  concluded  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
operators  had  not  agreed  to  accept  the  decision  of  a  commission  appointed 
in  this  manner  and  as  the  President  had  no  power  legally  to  enforce  the 
award  of  a  commission  appointed  by  him.  compliance  with  his  request 
would  mean  surrender  of  the  cause  for  which  the  miners  had  so  heroically 
fought.  I  was  therefore  reluctantly  compelled  to  decline  to  advise  the  men 
to  return  to  work,  much  as  I  sympathized  with  the  efforts  of  the  President 
in  behalf  of  the  people  of  the  L'nited  States. 

A  few  days  after  the  conference  with  the  President,  the  Governor  of 
Pennsylvania  ordered  out  the  entire  National  Guard.  \\hich  was  directed 
to  proceed  to  the  coal  fields.  I  was  fully  auarc  that  the  calling  out  of  the 
troops  would  not  have  the  effect  desired  by  the  ojKTators.  I  knew  that  the 
presence  of  ten  thousand  or  one  hundred  thousand  soldiers  would  not  re- 
sult in  the  strikers  returning  to  work,  and  the  order,  therefore,  for  the  mus- 
tering of  the  entire  National  (iuard  did  not  shake  my  confidence  in  the  ulti- 
mate victory  of  the  men.  In  order  to  demonstrate  the  falsity  of  the  claims 
made  by  the  ojx'rntors.  that  the  strikers  were  deterred  from  rcMiming  work 
through  fear  of  violence.  1  directed  that  all  men  on  strike  -union  ;uid  non- 
union— should  assemble  in  mass  meetings  and  by  vote  determine  whether 
or  not  they,  or  any  of  them,  desired  to  return  to  \\ork.  (  )n  the  \ery  day 
on  which  10.000  members  of  the  Penn-ylvama  National  Guard  \\ere  l»eing 
stationed  in  various  parts  of  the  coal  lichK.  and  \\hen  c'.er\  man  who  de- 
sired to  work  was  guaranteed  military  projet  tioti.  I;O,<KH>  mine  workers. 
without  one  dissenting  \oire.  \otcd  to  continue  the  M:ike  •••il:l  \:c(-rv  \\as 
.'.chieved  or  until  thev  \\err  ordered  bv  tiii-  IMI:":I  ' 

The  operator-,  had  repeatedly  promised  t'i.  t.  n   ^ue-i  nri        .    ptoi«r- 
tion.  they  would  Ix;  able  to  mine  MiMinent   «•  I  to  meet 
the  public:  but  the  arrival  of  t'ic  tr<  ops  In  .iMjue.  :      e  elitvt  ujH-n  t'ir* 

output   of  the  mines.      As  a  mailer  »:    tat 
serted   from  the  ranks  of  the  sinkers  or  1 


390  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

places,  now  refused  to  work.  The  failure  of  the  operators  thus  became 
evident  through  the  very  measure  which  they  had  urged  to  insure  success. 

With  coal  at  famine  prices,  with  the  press  and  the  country  clamoring 
for  the  resumption  of  mining,  the  operators  finally  realized  the  absolute 
necessity  of  surrender,  and  on  the  I3th  of  October,  Mr.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan 
called  upon  President  Roosevelt  and,  in  the  name  of  the  operators,  offered 
to  submit  the  matters  in  dispute  to  a  commission  consisting  of  five  men  to 
be  appointed  by  the  President  and  selected  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the 
letter  of  submission. 

At  the  time  the  offer  of  arbitration  was  made  the  mine  workers  had 
practically  won  the  strike.  The  funds  of  the  union  were  increasing  at  a 
rapid  rate,  and  the  amount  of  money  on  hand  was  greater  than  at  any  time 
in  the  previous  history  of  the  organization.  The  men  had  demonstrated 
conclusively  that  the  presence  of  the  troops  had  no  effect  and  that  they  were 
in  a  position  to  continue  the  contest  indefinitely.  At  the  same  time  I  felt 
that,  as  we  had  struggled  for  the  principle  of  arbitration,  we  would  not  be 
justified  in  refusing  to  accept  it  because  victory  was  within  our  hands. 

The  only  objection  that  I  had  to  the  proposition  submitted  by  Mr.  Mor- 
gan was  that  it  stipulated  that  the  arbitrators  be  selected  from  certain  avo- 
cations and  certain  classes  of  society.  I  therefore  insisted  that  the  Presi- 
dent be  free  to  exercise  his  own  judgment  in  the  selection  of  the  commission 
and  that,  if  the  operators  have  a  distinctive  representative  on  the  commis- 
sion, a  representative  trade  unionist  be  also  appointed.  The  justice  of  this 
position  was  acknowledged,  and  a  modification  of  the  original  proposition 
submitted  by  Mr.  Morgan  was  accordingly  secured.  As  soon  as  it  was 
learned  that  the  President  would  have  full  latitude,  a  delegate  convention 
of  the  striking  mine  workers  was  called  to  meet  in  Wilkesbarre  on  October 
the  2Oth.  After  a  full  day's  deliberation,  it  was  unanimously  decided  that 
work  should  be  resumed  October  the  23rd,  and  all  questions  in  dispute  were 
submitted  to  the  arbitration  of  the  commission  appointed  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States. 


CHAPTER  XLV 

THE  AWARD  OF  THE  ANTHRACITE  COAL  STRIKE 

COMMISSION 

The  Miners  Gain  Arbitration.  Organized  Labor  Represented  on  the  Commission. 
The  Work  of  the  Commission.  Testimony  and  Argument.  Nature  of  the  Investiga 
tion.  Its  Cost.  Bulk  of  Testimony.  Elaborate  Report.  Award,  Recommendations, 
and  Discussions.  Temporary  and  Permanent  Awards.  Wages.  Hours  of  Labor. 
Weighing  of  Coal.  Check  Weighmen  and  Docking  Rosses.  The  Union  Recognized. 
The  Board  of  Conciliation.  Its  Recognition  by  the  Operators.  The  Convention  of 
June,  1903.  The  Redress  of  Grievances. 

THE  coal  strike,  which  had  endured  for  five  months  as  a  result  of  the 
operators'  refusal  to  arbitrate,  was  brought  to  a  close  alx>ut  the  mid- 
dle of  Octotar  by  the  submission  of  the  questions  at  issue  to  arbitration. 
During1  the  whole  course  of  the  strike,  the  miners  had  vainly  strutted  for 
the  recognition  of  this  principle,  and  the  retreat  of  the  operators  from  their 
untenable  ix>sition.  constituted  a  clear  victory  for  the  men  and  justified  the 
declaration  of  the  strike.  As  originally  presented  in  the  letter  of  the  op- 
erators dated  Octol)cr  13.  the  offer  of  arbitration  was  entirely  unacceptable. 
This  defect,  however,  being  remedied  upon  the  demand  of  the  miners,  a 
return  to  work  was  immediately  recommended  by  the  MUtnct  K\ccuti\e 
Boards  and  unanimouslv  approved  in  general  convention  on  the  _'M  day 
of  Octolnrr.  The  susj>ension  of  mining,  \\hich  t<>r  one  hundred  and  -i\ty- 
three  days  had  l>ecn  general  throughout  the  re-ion,  thus  came  t<>  a  cl.^c. 

The  apiK.intment  of  the  Anthracite  C.M!  Stri!  e  Commi^  1  re- 

main a  landmark  in  the  history  of  labor.  I'.y  th>  .id,  ihe  President  of  «hr 
I'nited  States  asserted  and  upheld  the  paraiii"unt  interest  «.f  tin-  public  in 
conllicts  affecting  injuriously  the  \\elfare  of  ih,-  c..nuiuinity.  IP  n  rrrlam 
sense,  the  api^intmcnt  "I  lh<-  Anthracite  <  -d  Strike  ( '..mnii-,,,,1  v\as  a 
signal  pnx.f  of  the  p«>\\ev  of  public  opinion,  and  a  clrar  deni"t 
the  wise  manner  in  which  this  pov.cr  can  In-  cxciciM-d  at  critical  j>en 

(39») 


3Q2  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

The  sessions  of  the  Commission  were  destined  to  become  historical. 
Preliminary  meetings  were  held  on  October  24th  and  27th,  1902,  and 
with  few  intermissions,  the  Commission  sat  in  Scranton  and  Philadelphia 
from  the  14th  of  November,  1902,  until  the  5th  of  February,  1903.  This 
period  was  devoted  to  the  taking  of  testimony  and  was  succeeded  by  five 
days  of  argument  from  February  9th  to  February  I3th  inclusive.  The  ses- 
sions aroused  the  liveliest  public  interest,  and  thousands  of  people  attended, 
while  hundreds  of  others  were  unable  to  obtain  entrance  to  these  meetings. 

The  attorneys  presented  the  cases  o<f  both  operators  and  mine  workers 
with  great  skill  and  knowledge,  and  the  legal  contest  between  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  two  sides  evoked  intense  interest  and  general  enthusiasm. 
The  sessions  were  marked  by  a  series  o<f  dramatic  incidents,  chief  among 
which  was  the  testimony  of  the  little  children,  who  worked  in  the  silk  mills 
and  the  coal  breakers.  In  all,  558  witnesses  were  examined,  of  whom  240 
were  called  by  the  Union,  153  by  the  attorneys  for  the  non-union  men,  who 
were  specially  represented,  154  by  the  operators,  and  1 1  by  the  Commission. 
The  testimony  was  extremely  bulky,  amounting  to  over  10,000  legal  cap 
pages,  besides  a  vast  number  of  statistical  and  other  exhibits.  The  award, 
which  was  given  on  March  iSth,  1903,  was  also  lengthy,  and,  with  the  ex- 
hibits appended  to  it,  made  a  document  of.  some  120,000  words. 

The  findings  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission  consist  of  a 
report  and  an  award.  The  report  is  a  more  or  less  theoretical  discussion 
of  general  principles,  while  the  award  consists  of  specific  injunctions  and 
specific  recommendations  bearing  upon  the  anthracite  struggle.  I  shall  not 
discuss  the  report,  which  is,  in  my  opinion  and  in  that  of  the  great  body  of 
unionists,  a  document  prepared  by  fair-minded  and  intelligent  men,  but 
showing,  upon  the  whole,  a  lack  of  appreciation  of  some  of  the  fundamental 
principles  oi  unionism  and  based  upon  premises  which  cannot  be  maintained. 

The  award,  however,  displays  great  practical  wisdom  and  illustrates 
the  tendency  of  wise  men  to  surrender  theoretical  prejudices  when  they 
come  into  contact  with  a  real  and  pressing  problem.  While  it  did  not  give 
the  men  all  that  they  had  demanded  or  were  entitled  to,  still  the  award  of 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  393 

the  Commission  secured  to  them  substantial  advances  in  wages  and  ma- 
„  terial  improvement  in  conditions.  What  was  j>erh:ips  even  more  ini]H»r- 
tant,  it  recognized  the  United  Mine  \Yorkers  of  America  as  one  of  the  con- 
tracting parties,  thus  fixing  the  status  of  that  organization.  According  to 
the  award  of  the  Commission,  which  is  to  remain  in  effect  from  April  i. 
1903,  to  April  i,  1906,  all  contract  miners  were  to  receive  an  advance  of 
\Q>y  in  their  rates  of  pay  for  cutting  coal,  for  yardage,  and  for  other  work, 
for  which  standard  rates  or  allowances  previously  existe  1  The  engineers 
engaged  in  hoisting  water  were  to  have  a  reduction  of  hours  from  i  _•  to 
(S,  with  no  reduction  in  pay.  or,  in  other  words,  an  increase  of  50'.'  JK.T  hour, 
while  the  engineers  who  were  already  working  eight-hour  shifts  were  t<> 
have  no  further  reduction  in  hours,  but  a  ioV  increase  in  wages.  Hoisting 
engineers  and  other  engineers  and  pumpmen,  except  those  before  men 
tinned,  were  awarded  an  increase  oi  5'/  in  their  wages  and  relieved  from 
duty  on  Sunday,  with  full  pay.  or.  in  other  words,  an  hourly  increase  o! 
_'j'/.  The  firemen  were  also  awarded  an  eight-hour  day  instead  oi  a  tuelve 
hour  dav.  this  being  an  increase  of  •.<;•/  in  the  in  urly  rate  of  remuneration. 
'I  he  companv  men  or  men  who  were  paid  by  the  d  iv  -representing  aln.nl 
one-half  the  employees  in  and  about  the  mines  \\ere  guarded  a.  nine  hop; 
instead  < »f  a  ten-lu »nr  day.  and  as  these  men  are  practically  paid  b;.  t!ie  h- >ui . 
this  award  amounted  to  an  increase  of  i  i  !,</»'  in  their  wage  rate.  I  he^e 
awards  l>earing  np«.n  waives  were  to  be  further  advanced  \\  nh  «  \cry  increase 
in  the  price  of  coal.  \\  hen  \\  bite  Adi  c.-al  o|  s  e  pr.i  c 

or  near  Xew  York  harbor  at  a  j  ri'-c  ab"\e  -^  I-5"  i-  "   b..  thi-  cr.iplovefs  \\e: 
to  have  for  every  ;<•  in  excess  of  this  price,  an  iiiru-.i-e  »\   \  •  in  their  \\aijc- 
This  will  probably  amount  to  an  average  increase  ••!   .V-   dnrng  t!'»-  entire 
year,  this  l>eing  in  addition  to  the  inci\->e>  bei-.n-  ire:; 
.-'.ddition  to  the  wages  of  the  anthracite  mini • .' •.<  •}  l.ei  - 
strike  of   i(;oj  \\ill   probably   average  IK.*! \\eeu  --I'xeu  an< 
dollars  nnnuallv. 

The  ( .'ommission  aw;'.rdrd  the  pa\ineiit  oi  t! c  i;imrr« 
by  the  Company  instead  of  by  the  miner:  !>»••' 


394  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

be  equitably  distributed,  that  the  men  should  be  granted  the  right  to  have 
check  weighmen  and  check  docking  bosses,  whenever  a  majority  at  a  col- 
liery demanded  it,  and  decreed  that  no  person  should  be  refused  employment 
because  he  belonged  or  failed  to  belong  to  a  labor  organization. 

The  recommendations  of  the  Commission,  were,  upon  the  whole,  such 
as  would  commend  themselves  to  well-intentioned  and  well-informed  men. 

"The  Commission  thinks  that  the  practice  O'f  employing  deputies 

is  one  of  doubtful  wisdom,  and  perhaps  tends  to  invite  conflicts  between 
such  officers  and  idle  men  rather  than  to  avert  them."  The  Commission 
further  stated  that  the  employment  ol:  coal  and  iron  policemen  "militates 
against  the  very  purpose  for  which  they  are  employed."  It  recommended 
laws  against  the  employment  of  young  children  and  the  compulsory  investi- 
gation by  the  Federal  Government  of  controversies  of  the  nature  of  the 
Anthracite  Coal  Strike. 

The  most  important  feature  of  the  award  was  the  provision  for  a  board 
of  conciliation.  While  disclaiming  the- wish  to  compel  the  recognition  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  the  Commission  in  actual  practice 
made  that  recognition  inevitable  and  immediate.  The  Commission  recog- 
nized the  fact  that  it  could  not  itself  settle  future  disputes  as  they  arose;  it 
realized  that  it  was  not  a  perpetual  body,  and  it  feared,  with  good  reason, 
that  if  no  machinery  were  provided  for  the  interpretation  and  enforcement 
of  the  award,  such  award  would  soon  be  nullified,  and  conditions  would 
lapse  into  their  former  evil  state.  The  Commission  seemed  to  realize,  more- 
over, that  there  existed  no  machinery  excqDt  the  organization  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America  capable  of  guaranteeing  the  integrity  of  the 
award,  and  in  forming  a  board  of  conciliation,  therefore,  it  saw  itself  com- 
pelled to  rely  upon  the  machinery  provided  by  the  Union. 

The  Commission  adjudged  and  awarded :  "That  any  difficulty  or  dis- 
agreement arising  under  this  award,  either  as  to  its  interpretation  or  appli- 
cation, or  in  any  way  growing  out  of  the  relations  of  the  employers  and 
employed,  which  can  not  be  settled  or  adjusted  by  consultation  between 
the  superintendent  or  manager  of  the  mine  or  mines,  and  the  miner  or 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  395 

miners  directly  interested,  or  is  of  a  scope  too  large  to  be  so  settled  or  ad- 
justed, shall  be  referred  to  a  permanent  joint,  committee,  to  be  called  a  lx>ard 
of  conciliation,  to  consist  of  six  persons,  appointed  as  hereinafter  provided. 
That  is  to  say,  if  there  shall  be  a  division  of  the  whole  region  into  three 
districts,  in  each  of  which  there  shall  exist  an  organization  representing  a 
majority  of  the  mine  workers  of  such  district,  one  of  said  board  of  concilia- 
tion shall  be  appointed  by  each  of  said  organizations,  and  three  other  JX.T- 
sons  shall  be  appointed  by  the  operators,  the  operators  in  each  of  said  dis- 
tricts appointing  one  person. 

"The  board  of  conciliation  thus  constituted,  shall  take  up  and  consider 
any  question  referred  to  it  as  aforesaid,  hearing  both  parties  to  the  contro- 
versy, and  such  evidence  as  may  be  laid  before  it  by  either  party:  and  any 
award  made  by  a  majority  of  such  board  of  conciliation  shall  be  final  and 
binding  on  all  parties.  If,  however,  the  said  board  is  unable  t<>  deride  any 
question  submitted,  or  point  related  thereto,  that  question  or  point  shall  be 
referred  to  an  umpire,  to  be  appointed,  at  the  request  of  said  board,  by  one 
of  the  circuit  judges  of  the  third  judicial  circuit  of  the  United  Stales,  whose 
decision  shall  be  final  and  binding  in  the  premises. 

"The  membership  of  said  board  shall  at  all  times  be  kept  complete,  either 
the  operators'  or  miners'  organizations  having  the  right,  at  any  time  when 
a  controversy  is  not  ixMiding.  to  change  their  representation  thereon. 

"At  all  hearings  before  said  lx>ard  the  parties  may  be  represented  by 
such  person  or  j>ersons  as  they  may  resj>ccti\ely  select 

"Xo  suspension  of  work  shall  take  place,  by  l«K-k"Ut  <>r  strike,  pending 
the  adjudication  of  any  matter  so  taken  up  f«»r  adjustment." 

The  significance  of  this  award  is  evident  and  tli«>-,e  \\h"  inn  may  read. 
The  organizations  of  the  three  districts  meant,  of  course,  tin-  1 
ganizations.    I.  7  and  ().  of  the  I'nited    Mine  W-'ikei-  <-f    \menra.       I  he 
presidents  of  these  districts.  Messrs.  T.   I).  N'icholls.  Win.   II.   iVnrev.  and 
John  I-'ahy.  were  apj>ointtd  as  represcnt.itnc-  of  tin    1  'ni<  n  iii'-n  the  Ixinrd 
of  conciliation,  and  the  oprratnrs  appointed  Win.  <  '..until 
crator,  Koland  C.  I.uther.  Central  Manager  "I  ihr  i'h    .ddphia  »V  K'eadmg 


396  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

Coal  and  Iron  Co.,  and  S.  F.  Warriner,  General  Superintendent  of  the  Lc- 
high  Valley  Coal  Co.  These  appointments  were  made  in  June,  1903,  but  the 
operators  at  first  refused  to  recognize  the  three  district  presidents,  and  for 
a  time  feeling  ran  high  in  the  anthracite  region.  The  men  were  determined 
upon  striking,  unless  they  were  assured  that  their  duly  accredited  repre- 
sentatives would  be  accepted  by  the  board.  A  convention  of  all  anthracite 
mineworkers  was  held  and  the  appointment  of  the  mineworkers'  representa- 
tives confirmed.  The  railway  presidents,  recognizing  the  unwisdom  of 
their  policy,  agreed  to  be  bound  by  the  action  of  the  convention,  and  at  the 
present  time  the  board  of  conciliation,  is  succeeding  in  satisfactorily  solv- 
ing all  questions  of  interpretation  as  they  arise.  The  institution  of  a  board 
of  conciliation  augurs  well  for  the  continued  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
anthracite  region.  The  present  award  remains  in  force  until  the  first  day 
of  April,  1906,  and  will,  no  doubt,  be  -scrupulously  adhered  to,  both  by  op- 
erators and  miners.  At  that  time,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the 
operators  will  appreciate  the  wisdom  of  remaining  upon  good  terms  with 
their  employees,  and  will  enter  into  yearly  agreements  with  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America.  If  the  men  and  the  operators  can  work  together  for 
three  years  under  the  award,  if  they  can  learn  to  understand  each  other's 
motives  and  to  realize  that  they  have  large  interests  in  common,  the  future 
of  a  clear  and  definite  recognition  by  means  of  trade  agreements  need  not 
be  despaired  of,  and  wage  disputes  in  the  anthracite  industry  will  then  be 
adjusted  as  they  are  in  the  bituminous  fields  to-day — by  joint  conventions 
representing  the  capitalists  and  the  laborers.  The  award,  however,  must 
be  lived  up  to  according  not  only  to  its  letter,  but  to  its  spirit.  If  either 
the  men  or  the  operators  try  to  see  how  far  they  can  diverge  from  the  in- 
tention of  the  award  without  actually  breaking  it,  instead  of  trying  to  see 
how  clearly  and  consistently  they  can  live  up  to  it,  no  award  and  no  agree- 
ment will  ever  endure.  I  have  no  doubt,  however,  that  with  each  month 
relations  will  continue  to  improve,  and  that  from  1906  on,  labor  conditions 
will  be  fixed  annually  by  joint  convention,  and  peace  and  contentment  reign 
in  the  region  so  lately  distracted  and  ravaged  by  a  great  industrial  conflict. 


CHAPTER  XLVI 
LABOR  FEDERATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Federation  an  American  Idea.  The  Principle  of  Federation  carried  further  in  the 
United  States  than  in  Knglaml.  Loral  Unions  the  Hase  <>f  tin-  Pyramid:  the  Federa- 
tion the  Apex.  Federation  Begins  after  the  Civil  \Var.  The  National  Labor  Union. 
Platform  and  Principles.  Politics  and  Dissolution.  Knit-lit-  of  Lah'-r.  "The  Five 
Stars."  Secrecy  and  Publicity.  Methods  of  Organization,  Rapid  Crowih.  Principle*. 
'1  he  Rise  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Its  Con-titntion  and  Government. 
National  Organizers.  Federal  Unions,  (."untrasi  between  the  Knight-  and  the  Fedei 
ation.  Program  of  the  Federation.  National  Conferences.  Scope  and  Nature  of 
\Vork.  The  Future  of  Labor  Federations  in  the  United  Mate-. 

Till',  history  of  trade  unionism  in  the  I'nitcd  Slaie>  has  shoun  the  de- 
velopment of  national  or  inteniatit  nal  union-,  from  local  unions  an«l 
the  evolution  of  a  trade  union  federation  otit  <>|  the  vari<  us  national  or^an 
ixations.     'J'he  base  of  this  hti^e  pyramid  is  formed  by  ten*  «\  i!»«-n«;ands  «•! 
local  unions,  representing  various  trades  and  .scattered  throughout  the  cities, 
towns,  and  villages  of  the  country.     F.\clusi\e  of  >tate  branches,  there  ait- 
one  hundred  and  twelve  national  and  international  unions,  exerci^my;  j;in- 
diction  over  their  IrKral.s.  and.  finally,  there  is  a  single   lederated  U-l 
v. hich  the  national,  international,  and  other  unions  -m 

The  federation  of  trade  unions,  as  \\ r  understand  and  prat-fee 
Ix:  said  to  l>e  an  American  idea,  as  the  principle  »i 
trade  unions  has  Ixreii  carried  further  in  this  o.nniry  than  in  ( 
or  elsewhere.      There  is  nothing  in   I'.nti-li  tr.'ide  nn: 
IK:  comjKired   with   the    \merican    l;ederati< m  oi    I. 
temjits  at  federati</:i  \\crcinadccarlier  in  Kn^Jand 
As  has  l>eeii   said,   Ixith    l«»cal  and   national   u;r- 
country   than    in    Great    Lintain.       \tteinpt- 
until  even  a  more  recent  date.      I  'ntil  the  year   i 


3Q8  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

the  United  States  corresponding  to  a  national  trade  union,  and  until  the 
close  of  the  Civil  War  there  existed  no  federation  of  national  unions. 

The  first  organization  in  the  nature  of  a  national  federation  was 
formed  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  on  August  20,  1866.  This  organization, 
the  National  Labor  Union,  which  was  political  in  its  purposes,  left  but  small 
impress  during  its  short  life  upon  the  labor  movement.  The  organization 
held  conventions  every  year  from  1866  to  1870  inclusive,  and  in  the  year 
1868  adopted  a  formal  platform  which  was  devoted  chiefly  to  the  money 
question.  The  organization  claimed  credit  for  the  eight-hour  law  passed 
by  Congress  in  1868,  but  except  this  victory,  which  may  or  may  not  have 
been  due  to  the  National  Labor  Union,  the  organization  effected  but  little 
good  apart  from  the  agitation  which  it  carried  on.  The  union  suffered  the 
fate  of  organizations  which  are  solely  political  in  their  aims,  and  have  no 
central  idea  or  program  and  no  definite  industrial  policy. 

A  federation  of  much  greater  scope  and  power,  and  of  much  more 
lasting  influence  was  the  Knights  of  Labor.  This  organization,  which,  in 
1869,  resulted  from  a  series  of  conferences  in  Fairmount  Park,  Philadel- 
phia, was  formed  through  the  efforts  of  Uriah  S.  Stephens  and  six  other 
garment  cutters.  At  first  the  organization  was  secret,  and  a  ritual  was  en- 
forced which  resembled  that  of  the  Masonic  Orders,  Mr.  Stephens  himself 
being  a  Free  Mason.  A  new  member  was  initiated  with  the  greatest  pos- 
sible solemnity,  oaths  were  administered,  and  under  no  circumstances  was 
the  name  of  the  organization,  "The  Noble  Order  of  Knights  of  Labor,"  to 
be  mentioned  in  writing  or  in  speech. 

The  result  of  this  secrecy  was  the  creation  of  a  considerable  amount  of 
unnecessary  antagonism  on  the  part  of  the  community,  especially  of  the 
clergy.  When  it  was  found  that  the  five  stars  chalked  in  front  of  Inde- 
pendence Hall  in  Philadelphia  could  bring  together  several  thousands  of 
men  from  all  parts  of  the  city,  the  community  became  alarmed,  and  all  man- 
ner of  incredible  stories  regarding  the  doings  of  the  order  were  circulated 
and  gained  currency  and  credence.  The  opposition  of  Protestant  and  Cath- 
olic clergy  was  so  great  that  it  was  decided,  in  1878,  to  make  known  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  399 

name  of  the  order,  and  the  oath  of  secrecy  was  made  not  binding  with  ref- 
erence to  the  confessional.  With  the  throwing  aside  of  the  veil  of  secrecy, 
the  Noble  Order  rapidly  increased  in  membership.  In  1883  there  were 
52,000  members,  in  1885,  110,000,  and  in  1886  the  meml>ership  was  re- 
ported to  he  703,000.  although  the  estimate  by  Mr.  IV  wderle\.  the  General 
Master  Workman,  was  less  than  600,000. 

From  1886  on,  the  power  and  prestige  of  the  Knights  of  l^alx^r  l>egan 
to  decline.  The  American  Federation  of  Labor  had  already  IKXMI  formed, 
and  the  trade  unionists  were  turning  from  the  old  to  the  new  federation. 
In  1888,  the  convention  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  re]>orted  an  apparent  loss 
of  300,000  members,  and  in  the  following  years  meml>crship  continued  to 
diminish.  The  order  became  imolved  in  a  numlxr  of  unsuccessful  strikes, 
as  well  as  in  other  troubles,  and  by  the  Iieginning  of  the  nineties  was  in 
debt  and  was  obliged  to  remove  from  the  headquarters  in  Philadelphia  t<> 
a  less  pretentious  building  in  Washington.  Since  that  period,  the  Knights 
of  Labor  have  steadily  declined  in  membership  and  ha\e  also  declined  i" 
influence,  representing  at  the  present  time  an  entirely  insignificant  propor- 
tion of  the  organized  workers  of  the  country. 

The  passing  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  or- 
ganization disregarded  trade  lines  and  sought  to  merge  all  unions  into  <.ne. 
During  the  period  of  its  ascendency,  however,  the  order  did  much  to  infuse 
the  workers  \\ith  high  ideals,  and  its  efforts  in  In-half  of  unskilled  workmen 
and  of  women  workers  .ire  deserving  of  great  praise.  I  lie  order,  however. 
\\as  inevitablv  destined  to  failure,  and  it  v,  ill  probably  not  be  many  \ear- 
IK.- fore  the  principle  n|*>n  which  the  Knights  of  Lal^r  was  f.  .nn«!ed  \\ill  be 
given  up.  and  its  tV\  remaining  member  >  \\iil  i"in  national  unions  allihatol 
with  the  Amerir;m  Federation  of  Lal/or. 

The  American   Federation  of  Labor  \\as  formed  upon  a  ha-i-.  entuelv 
different    from   that  of  tin-   Knights  of   L.-in-r.       \lthongli   the   Knights  oi 
Labor  was  originally  constituted  as  an  org'ini/ation  •  f  -ep.iiate  trade-., 
ing  compo-ed  primarily  of  garment  \\oiker-.  the  p<  -hey  changed  .  *  •'»  t'esi 
of  the  accession  of  memlx-rs  from  oilier  trade-.,  until  the  union  e.une  !••  be 


400  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

an  organization  of  all  workers  in  all  trades.  The  central  thought  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor  was  the  identity  of  interest  of  all  productive  workers,  and 
the  organization  was  conceived  in  the  sense  of  a  union  of  all  members  of  the 
working  classes,  irrespective  of  trades.  The  Knights  practically  set  no 
standard  of  admission,  and  included  not  only  the  professional  classes  but 
many  employers.  Farmers  were  freely  admitted  as  well  as  manufacturers, 
doctors,  and  men  engaged  in  mercantile  pursuits,  the  rules  providing  that 
any  person  over  sixteen  years  of  age  might  be  admitted,  if  he  was  not  en- 
gaged as  an  employer  in  the  handling  of  intoxicating  drinks,  and  if  he  was 
not  a  banker,  a  lawyer  or  a  professional  gambler.  Representation  was 
based  not  upon  trades  or  industries  but  upon  location,  the  organization  be- 
ing divided  geographically  or  territorially.  The  fundamental  theory  of  the 
union  was  that  an  injury  to  one  was  the  concern  of  all,  and  it  was  argued 
therefore  that  all  men  engaged  in  productive  labor,  irrespective  o>f  the  na- 
ture of  their  work,  should  be  admitted  into  a  single,  unified  organization. 
The  failure  and  subsequent  decline  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  resulted 
from  the  fact  that  it  thus  disregarded  trade  lines  and  was  too  inclusive  in 
its  membership.  No  trade  union  federation  can  be  permanently  successful 
unless  it  respects  the  autonomy  and  self-government  of  the  various  unions 
of  which  it  is  composed.  The  miners  of  Illinois,  Ohio,  Arkansas,  and  West 
Virginia  have  practically  identical  interests,  but  in  any  given  state  or  ter- 
ritory there  is  a  wide  divergence  and  dissimilarity  in  interest  between  its 
miners  and  its  locomotive  engineers,  its  carpenters  and  its  garment  workers, 
its  glass  blowers  and  its  waiters,  its  doctors  and  its  farmers,  its  manufac- 
turers and  its  newspaper  writers,  even  though  these  various  people  live  and 
work  in  the  same  city  or  on  the  same  street.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  or- 
ganize all  these  various  occupations  into  a  single  compact  body,  and  it  is 
utterly  self-destructive  to  allow  representatives  of  all  these  classes  to  decide 
upon  the  merits  of  a  controversy  between,  let  us  say,  the  garment  workers 
and  their  employers.  The  American  Federation  of  Labor,  therefore,  was 
organized  upon  the  basis  of  trade  autonomy.  While  at  first  there  appeared 
to  be  some  disposition  to  organize  territorially,  the  Federation  disclaimed 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  401 

the  intention  of  merging  its  several  unions  into  a  single,  compact  Ixxly.  and 
restricted  its  efforts  to  affiliating  or  federating  them.  The  American  Fed- 
eration <;f  Labor  is  based  upon  the  idea  of  the  independence  of  the  various 
unions  composing  it,  and  it  permits  each  union  to  regulate  its  internal  policy 
as  it  will.  The  government  of  the  Knights  of  I^abor  \\as  centralized  and 
unified,  the  organization  exercising  the  same  sort  of  control  over  its  con- 
stituent parts  that  the  Republic  of  France  exercises  over  Us  various  depart- 
ments, or  the  State  of  Xew  York  over  its  various  counties.  The  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  based  upon  the  idea  of  a  Kx>se 
federal  government  such  as  that  of  the  t  nited  States,  or.  better  still,  such 
as  existed  in  this  country  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  The  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  is  really  less  a  federation  than  a  confederation, 
and  it  is  owing  to  the  looseness  of  its  organization  and  the  jHiwer  which 
the  confederated  unions  reserve  that  the  organization  has  attained  so  pre- 
eminent and  secure  a  position  in  the  lalior  \\orld. 

The  preliminary  meeting  to  form  the   Federation  of   LaUir   was  held 
on  August  _'.   iSSi.      It  was  the  result  of  a  combination  of  the  Knight-  oi 
Industry  and   the  Amalgamated    Lalx-r    I'nioii.   which   latter  organi/ation 
was  composed  of  incml>ers  \\Iio  had  seceded   Irmn  the   Knights  oi    1  .ab»r. 
The  organization,  which  was  formed  at  Pittsburi;.  Pa..  NoxemU-r  15.  iSSi. 
\\a-   originally    styled    The    Federation    of   (  )r^ani/cd    Trade-    and    L.tlx'r 
I  'nions  of  the  I  "nited  States-  of  America  and  ('anada.  and  claimed  .it   the 
start   the  adherence  of  labor  organixations  v.itii   an  estimated   memltcr-hip 
in  excess  of  a  (jiiarter  of  a  million.      Tins  membership,  lio\\e\er.  a-  v.cll 
the  nnmber  of  miion-  al'tiliated  with  the  l-eder:.;  on.  tap;<;> 
the  succeeding   v<-ar>.  and   in    iSSo  it    v.  as  aiM'eed      -  mer-^e 
Federation   \\ith   a   nnmU  r  of  indej^-ndent   trade  nir'-n-   \\i: 
about  to  form  a  nc\v  federal  i»rgaiii/ati<'H.       I  he  n--i 
which  t'-'k  place  in  t  lie  year  iKSo.  \\;(s  the  j-ie-ent      inencaii  l-cdei.ition  ,<\ 
I.nlvr;  but  the  or^i  si/at  ion  dales  it.  CM^CTI..- 
original  I -i-derai;-  •'!  ••!  Orgauiziil    hadr- 

I'lom  the  date  of  this  aniak'.-mvtM.n  tin-  .\niei:.  an  I  cdei.iti.'ii  oi  L-d^r 


402  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

grew  once  more  in  strength  and  power.  By  1890  it  again  claimed  a  mem- 
bership of  250,000,  and  since  that  time  its  members  have  gradually  in- 
creased. During  the  last  years  in  particular  its  growth  has  been  exceed- 
ingly rapid.  Exclusive  of  the  membership  oi  local  central  and  state 
branches,  the  organization  had,  in  1898,  264,400  members,  in  1899, 
334,100,  1900,  515,400,  in  1901,  742,600,  and  in  1902,  957,500.  These 
figures,  however,  are  very  much  below  the  actual  membership  of  the  or- 
ganization, since  they  exclude  all  the  members  of  678  federal  and  local 
unions,  and  all  the  members  of  425  central  labor  bodies,  as  well  as  those  of 
27  state  branches.  The  method  of  calculation  adopted,  moreover,  is  based 
upon  the  receipts  of  the  per  capita  tax,  which  invariably  show  a  number 
much  smaller  than  the  actual  membership.  No  member  of  a  local  union 
is  counted  as  such  unless  he  has  paid  up  to  the  last  month,  and  members  tem- 
porarily in  arrears,  of  which  there  are  always  many,  are  not  counted.  The 
locals  in  paying  dues  to  the  national  union  oftentimes  fail  to  report  upon 
their  full  membership,  and  the  national  organizations  in  turn,  in  paying 
their  tax  to  the  Federation,  are  also  inclined  to  pay  less  rather  than  more 
than  their  just  amount.  Moreover,  the  estimate  of  members  is  based,  not 
on  the  number  at  the  close  of  the  year,  but  on  the  average  paid-up  member- 
ship reported  each  month.  It  is  probable  that  at  the  present  time  the  actual 
number  of  bona  fide  members,  ordinarily  paying  their  dues,  connected  with 
national  and  local  unions  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
and  omitting  all  or  any  repetitions,  is  in  excess  of  two  millions. 

The  funds  of  the  organization  have  also  increased  at  a  rapid  rate. 
From  1881  to  1886  inclusive,  the  total  annual  receipts  ranged  between  $125 
and  $690.  From  that  time  on  the  receipts  quickly  increased,  reaching  a 
total  of  almost  $24,000  in  1890.  No  increase,  however,  took  place  after 
this  point' was  reached  until  the  year  1899,  when  the  receipts  amounted  to 
$37,000.  In  1900  the  receipts  increased  to  $71,000.  in  1901,  to  $115,000, 
and  in  1902  to  $144,000.  The  income  during  the  present  year  will  be  very 
much  in  excess  of  that  of  the  preceding  year. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  American  Federation  is  the  sovereign  organi- 


ORGANMZED    LABOR  403 

zation  in  the  trade  union  world  and  represents  the  apex  of  a  pyramid,  the 
foundation  of  which  consists  of  one  hundred  and  twelve  national  unions 
and  many  thousands  of  local  organizations.  The  steady  and.  at  times,  rapid 
growth  of  the  Federation  has  resulted  from  its  adoption  of  a  wise,  conserva- 
tive policy  and  from  its  adherence  to  the  interests  and  purposes  for  which 
it  was  instituted.  The  object  of  the  Federation  has  l>cen.  and  still  is,  to 
foster  and  encourage  the  formation  of  local  and  national  organizations,  to 
secure  the  institution  of  local  and  state  central  bodies,  to  establish  friendly 
feelings  between  the  various  national  and  international  organizations, 
though  without  destroying  their  autonomy  and  self-government,  and  to 
encourage  and  promote  the  lal>or  press  of  the  country,  as  \\ell  as  the  use  of 
union  label  goods. 

The  administrative  government  is  carried  on  by  the  president  and  an 
executive  council,  consisting  of  the  president,  six  vice-presidents,  a  secretary, 
and  a  treasurer,  all  of  whom  must  be  menilx.'rs  of  some  local  union.  The 
legislative  power  is  vested  in  a  comenli<.n.  in  which  the  national  organi/a- 
tions  are  represented  it:  proportion  to  their  membership,  a  national  union 
having  one  vote  for  each  one  hundred  members.  The  Federation  also  in- 
cludes in  its  membership  separate  local  unions  not  affiliated  with  national 
organizations,  but  \\hcrcver  possible  it  encourages  the  merging  oi  these 
locals  into  national  unions.  Such  locals  are  under  the  direct  control  and 
supervision  of  the  Federation,  which  stands  to  them  in  the  vatne  relation 
as  a  national  union  to  its  constituent  locals,  directly  aids  and  -'.dvi<  s  them 
in  the  matter  of  Mrikes  or  lockouts,  and  pro\ides  for  their  support  ar.d  main 
tenance. 

The  revenue  of  the  Federation  is  deri\cd  from  a  per  capt.i  tax  of  Jo" 
JK.T  month.  <  r  or  JK.T  year,   for  each  member  ot   tin-  affiliated  national  or 
gani/ations.      The  tax    for  ].,eal  unions  not  all. hated  \\ith  national  unions 
i>  lor1  IHT  month,  uhich  i-  twenty  times  as  gre.it  per  mnnU-t  a-  is  that  o| 
t!ie  national  unions.      It   should  be  remembered.   ho\\e\cr.   that   the-e  ]'«cal 
unions  are  simply  paying  to  the   Federation  d-ies  \\lneh  they  \\onM  other 
wise  pay  to  the  national  organi/atior.s  ,,f  \\hich  they  formed  a  part.      <  on 


404  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

sequently  there  is  no  injustice  in  these  locals,  which  are  directly  chartered 
by  the  Federation,  paying  this  amount  to  their  parent  body.  A  consider- 
able portion  of  the  money  obtained  from  local  unions  is  devoted  to  the  sup- 
port of  their  strikes  and  to  other  purposes  connected  with  their  welfare. 
The  Federation  further  applies  a  large  part  of  its  income  to  the  formation 
of  new  locals,  which  is,  perhaps,  one  of  its  greatest  and  best  works.  At 
the  present  time  it  has  uporMts  rolls  twenty-five  salaried  organizers,  who  de- 
vote their  entire  time  to  forming  new  unions  and  to  settling  the  strikes  or 
controversies  of  such  unions  as  are  formed.  It  is  also  assisted  by  one  thou- 
sand one  hundred  and  seventy-eight  volunteer  organizers,  who  receive  a 
small  commission  for  each  local  union  established  by  them. 

The  political  activities  of  the  Federation  have  been  discussed  in  another 
place;  but  it  may  be  proper  in  this  connection  to  discuss  the  problem  in 
its  more  general  aspects.  The  Federation  has  done  yeoman  service  in  pro- 
posing legislation  and  in  attempting  to  secure  its  enactment  and  enforce- 
ment. Up  to  the  present  time  it  has  not  as  yet  had  sufficient  po\ver  or  con- 
trol over  its  various  constituent  local,  central,  and  state  bodies  to  become  as 
effective  as  it  will  doubtless  be  in  the  future ;  but,  despite  defect  in  its  power, 
much  progress  has  been  made.  The  Federation  is  debarred  by  its  con- 
stitution from  directly  affiliating  itself  with  political  parties.  According 
to  Article  III,  Section  8,  "Party  politics,  whether  they  be  Democratic,  Re- 
publican, Socialistic,  Populistic,  Prohibition  or  any  other,  shall  have  no 
place  in  the  conventions  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor."  Num- 
erous attempts  have  been  made  by  Socialist  members  of  the  Federation  to 
secure  control  of  the  body  and  to  commit  it  to  the  Socialist  platform ;  but 
these  efforts  have  been  unsuccessful.  The  trade  unions  and  the  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  itself  stand  for  a  number  of  reforms  contained  in  the  platform 
of  the  Socialist  party,  but  the  great  majority  of  the  members,  whatever 
their  political  sympathies,  refuse  to  permit  the  Federation  to  be  committed 
to  any  definite  political  party,  existing  or  to  be  formed. 

While  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  has  performed  good  and 
effective  work  in  the  past,  it  has  not  as  yet  been  able  to  accomplish  all  that 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  405 

is  possible,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  has  not  received  the  entire,  enthusiastic, 
and  ungrudging  support  of  its  affiliated  unions.  Its  policy  of  respecting 
the  autonomy  and  right  of  self-government  of  its  constituent  or  affiliated 
bodies,  should  win  for  it  the  loyalty  and  staunch  support  of  the  unions  com- 
posing it.  The  Federation  cannot  grow  strong  by  itself,  but  can  prosper 
only  through  the  fidelity  and  cheerful  adherence  of  the  unions.  Many 
phases  of  activity  commending  themselves  to  the  trade  union  world  can  be 
carried  out  only  through  the  American  Federation  of  Lalx>r;  and  if  nec- 
essary the  unions  should  even  subordinate  their  own  immediate  interests 
to  those  of  the  great  mass  of  the  workmen  of  this  country  and  should  under 
all  circumstances  endeavor  to  unite  for  political  and  industrial  purposes  by 
strengthening  the  hands  of  the  Federation.  The  political  program  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Lal)or  should  be  carefully  considered  by  the  officers 
as  well  as  the  members  of  the  various  unions  composing  it,  and  the  action  of 
the  majority  of  unionists,  as  determined  by  a  vote  in  the  Federation,  should 
be  binding  uj>on  all  members  of  all  affiliated  trade  unions.  The  state  federa- 
tions and  the  local  central  bodies  should  IK*  more  directly  under  the  control, 
guidance,  and  supervision  of  the  Feder.ition.  .'in<l  the  national  organizations 
should  enforce  this  control  by  refusing  to  permit  their  locals  under  jmialty 
of  fine,  suspension,  or  expulsion,  from  Ijclonging  to  any  local,  central,  or 
state  body  which  has  Urn  susj>cndcd  by  the  Federation.  The  pilitical  pro- 
gram of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  should  IK-  worked  out  in  detail 
and  shouJd  l>e  sent  to  the  various  national,  state,  and  local  eentral  lilies,  in 
order  that  the  projier  inlluence  may  he  brought  to  U-ar  UJN.U  tnetnU-rs  <.f 
Congress  or  other  legislators  residing  in  the  particular  district.  State  ami 
municipal  legi.-lation  should  remain  in  the  hands  ot  the  state  and  local 
bodies,  but  no  action  should  U- taken  that  will  conilict  with  the  national  aims 
and  aspirations  of  American  trade  unions,  as  formulated  by  the  American 
Federation  of  I  .abor. 

The  American  Federation  of  l.alnir  should  also  recrive  the  hc.irty  -up 
|K»rt  of  all  national  and  local  organi/atioiis  in  the  matter  of  juri  dictiona! 
disputes.  When  a  dispute  cannot  l>e  settled  by  the  partn-x  !••  tin*  «ontp» 


406  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

versy,  arbitration  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  should  be  compul- 
sory, and  punishment  should  he  meted  out  to  any  organization  which  re- 
fuses to  live  npu-to  the  award.  At  the  present  time,  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  can  not  always  enforce  its  decisions  upon  strong  unions,  OAY- 
ing  to  the  fear  that  a  number  of  large  national  organizations  may  possibly 
take  sides  With  the  union  which  has  lost  in  the  arbitration.  If,  however, 
the  national  unions  would  all  remain  loyal  to  the  organization  and  would 
insist  upon  both  parties  to  the  controversy  living  up  to  the  award,  a  vast 
amount  of  injury  might  be  avoided,  and  both  the  Federation  and  the  several 
trade  unions  themselves  would  be  infinitely  strengthened  in  public  estima- 
tion. The  prestige  and  power  of  labor  unions  of  the  United  States  will  be 
enhanced  by  any  increase  in  the  prestige  and  power  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  and  will  be  lessened  by  any  diminution  of  the  estimation  in 
which  the  Federation  is  held  by  the  American  people. 

One  of  the  most  deplorable  facts  in  the  present  status  oi"  labor  organ- 
ization in  the  United  States  is  the  refusal  of  the  railroad  brotherhoods  to 
throw  in  their  lot  with  the  other  workingmen  connected  v.  ith  the  trade  union 
movement.  There  was  ample  and  sufficient  reason  for  refusing  to  join  the 
Knights  of  Labor,  which  claimed  jurisdiction  over  the  individual  members 
and  endeavored  to  fuse  the  laboring  people  of  the  country  into  one  single, 
unified  body.  There  is,  however,  no  such  objection  to  joining  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor.  By  doing  so  the  railroad  brotherhoods  would 
not  surrender  any  part  of  their  autonomy  or  power  of  self-direction.  They 
could  not  be  drawn  against  their  will  into  sympathetic  strikes  or  boycotts, 
a-nd  they  could  not  be  prevented  or  hindered  from  engaging  in.'  any  strikes 
or  other  movements  in  which  they  desired  to  engage.  Their  adherence" to  the 
Federation  would  mean  increased  strength  to  that  body  and  increased  power 
to  themselves,  and  it  would  bring  to  an  end  the  policy  of  aloofness  and  sep^* 
aratism  which  has  not  yet  completely  died  out  in  the  labor  movement. 


CHAPTER  XLVII 
THE  WORK  BEFORE  THE  UNIONS 

What   Trade   I'ni. -nisni   has   Done  and  \Vliat    Remains  \«  he   Done.     Further  Or 
gani/.:ition.     Improving  the   Quality   of    Unionists.     Labor    Lyceums   an<l    Labor  Jour 
nals.     Kaising  the   Li'ficiency  «.f  Worker-.     Maintaining  Agreements.     Raising  Wages. 
Lowering-    Hours.    Improving    Conditions.    Preventing    Accidents.     Compensating    for 
Accidents.     Progress  and  Social  Reform. 

T^RADK  unionism  has  aco  mpiished  much  in  I  In-  past  and  has  l>ehind  it 
an  honorahle  record  of  "ood  \\,,\k  well  done.  hut  the  tinu'  i^  n«>t  yiM. 
iir>r  \\  ill  it  c\'cr  cnme,  \v!ion  the  unions  may  erase  their  activity,  a-  a  warrior 
takes  off  his  armor  .".r.d  sav  that  the  t.isk  i-  done.  \\  ith  ne\\  eoiiditii'Mis 
ne\v  prohlems  arise,  r.nd  \vith  each  advance  in  tradf  trii  >!ii»m.  the  amount 
o!  \\'ork  to  he  done  increases  and  the  dutv  re>ti;i^'  njn>n  trade  unions  IK* 
comes  more  ini[x^rati\-e. 

'i  lie  !ir-t  \vork  \vhieli  lies  he  fore  American  trade  unions  is  further  or- 
ganization. The  j-freii^th  of  trade  nnior.s  ir.crease^  much  more  rapidly 
than  docs  JiH'm!)crshi|).  Six  miliion  trade  nnioni<t>  in  the  I  nited  State> 
\votild  not  he  t\\ice.  hut  four  •  r  h\c  limi-s  a^  powerful  ::<  ihree  millions. 
Kach  new  ad'ieret't  to  the  unioi^  makes  firmer  and  -ti'or^er  the  i»>viiioii  oj 
e\ery  other  irnioni-t  in  the  cotnitry.  h.sjif-cialh  -h<<MM  the  niuons  en 
dea\<  T  I.  •  i  r:;ani/e  i!ie  ir.en  and  \\omen  in  the  m:4.:i!ed  Made-,  and  liy  mak- 
ing sacrifice-  for  the  !e-  fi-rlunate  memU-r^  of  tin-  i.rktn^  class,  inten^ily 
tlu:  feeling  of  -..lidarity  .''.v>l  lirot'icrh-  o  1  am-  n;.  r.-c  «.nneis 

There    are    mary    vay-    in    \\liich    trade    nn: ••••-     im^'-t    extend    the 
beneficent   inilur::cc   \\ !   c'1;   t!:ev   i:ow   exert    n;-  1  •">  a   larger 

extent    than    ;•.?    j>re«>en!.    thry    chonld    I»eco:ve  :;itrl!ectual   r<*n- 

tre<;.-     '!  hr   I<"«-al>   or   a^^re^'it-n    ^   of   jocal-  rvunnnrjit    flur> 

;,  \\herc  men  might  %n  to  <;prnd  an  (•••.  enmt;.  and  tl;ey  «houl«l  p*^1^^ 


408  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

a  few  books,  so  that  the  leaders  as  well  as  the  rank  and  file  might  be  kept 
informed  upon  the  subjects  connected  with  their  work  or  their  position  as 
workingmen.  In  every  town  one  or  more  union  assembly  rooms  should 
be  found,  where  workingmen  might  secure  the  various  trade  union  journals, 
and  other  labor  papers,  as  well  as  books  and  magazines.  In  order  that 
unionists  might  be  enabled  to  obtain  information  upon  many  points  and  be 
afforded  opportunity  for  mutual  improvement,  speakers  from  other  trades 
or  from  other  branches  of  the  same  union,  as  well  as  men  entirely  outside 
the  movement  should  be  invited  to  address  local  meetings. 

One  of  the  most  effective  methods  of  solidifying  trade  union  sentiment 
is  by  the  combination  of  various  unions  in  the  same  locality  for  the  main- 
tenance of  a  common  labor  lyceum.  Frequently,  the  local  unions  meet  in 
the  dingiest  and  worst  kept  of  places,  or  often  in  bare  rooms,  back  of  saloons. 
These  surroundings  can  not  but  have  their  effect  upon  the  whole  tone  of 
the  meeting,  and  the  proximity  of  the  place  of  meeting  to  a  saloon  renders 
intemperance  easy  and  tends  in  many  cases  to  drive  away  from  the  meet- 
ings the  better  class  of  unionists.  Where  unionists  combine  and  share 
jointly  in  the  expense  of  a  common  lyceum,  with  a  sufficiently  large  assembly 
room  and  with  suitable  committee  rooms,  there  is  a  greater  chance  that  the 
meeting  will  be  conducted  in  a  sensible,  orderly,  and  business-like  manner 
and  a  better  opportunity  is  afforded  for  men  of  various  .trades  to  meet  and 
obtain  from  such  intercourse  a  wider  outlook,  than  is  possible  within  a 
single  local  union. 

The  intellectual  improvement  of  the  trade  unionist  can  also  be  fur- 
thered by  means  of  the  official  journals  of  the  unions  and  by  other  labor 
newspapers.  The  increase  in  the  number  and  circulation,  and  the  improve- 
ment in  the  quality,  of  trade  union  papers  have  been  one  of  the  most  promis- 
ing signs  of  progress  in  the  past,  and  this  improvement  must  continue  in 
the  future.  The  labor  journals,  besides  giving  the  news  and  the  gossip  of 
the  trade,  already  discuss  matters  of  interest  to  labor  and  in  the  case  of  a 
number  of  journals  afford  the  reader  an  opportunity  to  acquire  a  vast 
amount  of  technical  information  and  thus  promote  his  knowledge  of  his 


ORGANIZED    LABOR 

trade.  These  journals  should  never  be  run  for  profit  or  in  the  interest  of 
advertisers,  and  the  price  should  be  kept  so  low  and  the  quality  so  high  that 
the  circulation  will  be  extended  as  far  as  possible. 

Trade  unionism  should  also  aim  constantly  to  elevate  the  moral  stand- 
ard of  workingmen.  The  members  of  trade  unions  must  respect  themselves, 
if  they  desire  their  unions  to  be  respected.  A  strong  union  is  not  in  itself 
sufficient  to  gain  the  regard,  esteem,  and  good  wishes  of  the  community, 
and  a  union  cannot  be  strong  unless  it  is  founded  on  the  ur.selhsh  adherence 
of  self-respecting  men.  Trade  unionism,  moreover,  must  do  all  in  its 
power  to  make  the  workmen  efficient  and  valuable  employees.  The  trade 
unionist  should  in  the  future,  even  more  than  to-day,  be  distinguishable 
from  the  non-unionist  by  the  cheerfulness  and  efficiency  of  his  work.  A 
union  card  should  l>e  the  badge  of  honest  effort  and  goo:I  \\orkmanship. 
The  unions  cannot  hojx:  permanently  to  ad\ance  the  v. age*  and  wehare  of 
their  memlx?rs.  unless  they  continue  increasingly  to  enhance  the  ability  an«! 
industry  of  the  individual  workman. 

Trade  unions  must  further  extend  the  sphere  of  the  trade  agreement 
and  must  do  everything  in  their  power  to  impro\e  t!ie  relations  l>ct \\xvn 
employers   and   employed.     The   unions   can    even   aftonl   occasionally    to 
forego  slight  and  immediate  advantages,  if  by  so  doing  they  ran  sernrc  tht 
]>ermancnt  esteem  and  confidence  of  the  employers  of  the  nation. 
all.    trade   agreements,    whether   national    or    local,    general    or    p::rr<  ular. 
formal  or  informal,  written  or  . »ral.  should  be  adhered  t..  religion-' 
scrupulously.      The  won!  of  the  union  must   U-  U-itcr  t!i: 
the  action  of  the  individual  unionist  must,  under  pe-: 
in  accordance  with  the  spirit  as  well  as  the.  letter  oi  .t-n  cnicnt- 

Trade  unionists  have  still  much  to  d<>  to\\ar<!>    e«  ur.iu;  p:";*M   \ 
ieduce<l  hours  of  v.ork.  and   reasonable  conditions  «.|   la!* 
of  \\orkmen  should  be  considerably  higher  than  t!:ey  arc  .         r  j-re^ 
and  f<»r  the  ordinary  unskilled  workiitgman.  residing  tu  t<  .\\  n>  •.(  DM; 
and   working  eight   hours  a  day.  an   invincible  minimum 
dollar*  should   Ixr  secured.      The  hours  .  ,t    lib-  i  .    in   practical';    .ill 


4IO  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

industries,  be  reduced  to  eight,  and  the  Saturday  half-holiday  should  be 
everywhere  secured.  The  unions  should  obtain  the  prevention  of  Sunday 
work  except  where  it  is  a  matter  of  absolute  necessity  or  charity,  and  over- 
time should  in  all  trades  be  so  regulated  that  it  will  not  become  system- 
atic. By  means  of  trade  union  effort  the  conditions  of  the  factories  should 
be  rendered  far  more  sanitary  than  they  are  at  present.  Stringent  laws 
should  be  enacted  in  securing  the  minute  regulation  of  dangerous  trades, 
and  it  should  be  taken  out  of  the  power  of  the  individual  workman  to  ruin 
his  health,  undermine  his  constitution,  and  poison  and  destroy  his  whole 
system  by  working  Under  conditions  annihilating  to  human  kind.  The  fac- 
tories themselves  should  be  places  where  the  woi'kingmen  of  this  country 
can  find  their  work  a  source  of  pleasure  instead  of  a  wearisome  round  of 
tasks  under  degrading  and  disgusting  conditions. 

The  trade  unions  should  take  the  child  off  the  street,  out  of  the  breaker, 
the  mill,  and  the  factory  and  put  him  to  school;  they  should  foresee  and 
guard  against  every  evasion  of  the  laws  regulating  the  employment  of  chil- 
dren. The  abomination  of  the  Southern  cotton  and  tobacco  factories  should 
be  w^iped  out  entirely.  The  woman  who  toils  should  be  protected  in  her 
capacity  as  bread  winner ;  she  should  toil  only  under  proper  conditions,  and 
the  trade  unions  should  persist  in  their  efforts  to  improve  conditions  of 
women  workers,  upon  whom  so  much  of  the  burden  of  our  factory  life  falls. 
Trade  unions  should  protect  the  health  and  save  the  life  and  limb  of  the 
workers.  They  should  enforce  conditions  which  will  guarantee  the  security 
of  the  men,  women,  and  children  at  work  and  diminish  the  number  of  pre- 
ventable accidents.  Moreover,  the  unions  should  endeavor  to  obtain  laws 
which  will  compensate  workmen  for  accidents  which  cannot  be  prevented, 
so  that  men  killed  in  the  performance  of  their  duties  shall  not  leave  widows 
and  orphans  dependent  upon  the  charity  of  the  community. 

The  protection  of  the  widows  and  orphans  of  workingmen  killed  in 
the  performance  of  their  duties,  is  of  grave  importance  to  the  community, 
but  the  right  to  such  protection  has  not  been  fully  recognized  or  adequately 
conceded.  This  is  especially  true  in  the  United  States.  In  this  country, 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  411 

the  economic  development  has  been  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  all 
times  and  all  peoples.  The  wheels  of  progress  have  revolved  at  an  ever 
accelerating  speed,  ami  things  have  Ix'en  accomplished  with  an  instan- 
taneous suddenness,  which  reminds  or.;-  of  the  miraculous  events  of  the 
"Arabian  Xights."  The  country  has  grown  from  a  few  millions  of  farmers 
and  fishermen  living  r.ear  the  margin  of  existence  to  a  great,  wealthy  nation 
of  eighty  millions.  Machine  has  supplanted  tool,  improvement  followed 
improvement,  new  methods  displaced  old.  until  the  country  has  Ix-coine  al- 
most choked  with  its  prosjXTity  and  embarrassed  with  its  riihcs. 

In   the  meanwhile,   however,    we   have   been    so   daxxled   by   our  own 
achievements  that  we  have  failed  to  perceive  the  other  side  of  the  shield. 
For  this  vast  prosperity  we  have  paid  a  large  price.      \Ye  have  l>cen  carred 
along  upon  a  wave  of  materialism  and  have  too  largely  made  the  do!l;ir 
the  unit  of  success,  both  |>ersonal  and  national.      \Ye  would    jud^c  c\erv- 
thing  upon  the  basis  of  cheapness.  UJHIU  our  ability,  in  other  \\i»rds.  to  com- 
|>cte  for  foreign  markets.      In  no  other  c .  .inilry  'ia>  life  been  s, i  lightly  re- 
garded, has  tin-  workingman  been  so  mercilessly  e\jx  scd  to  \;.>'cnt  death 
•  i    to  grievous  injury.      In  no  oilier  country   is  there  less  organixed  com- 
pensation for  those  who  are  killed  or  maimed,   for  those  who  .ire  sacrilu-c  1 
and  slaughtered  that  others  may  -TOU   rich.      'I  i:e  country  -A Inch  spent  b! 
liot.s  of  dollars  for  the  |K-nsi"'iing  oi   us  MiMicr<.  whicii  at  ;ui«»!hi*r  nine 
wiped  out  at  once  other  biibons  ,  <\  dollar-  oi   human  pr-1; -<-M 
gardi-d  ah':o-t  utterly  the  claims  <>i  ;!ie  :i;cn.  \, .  »ii'.«-:i.  aiul  i  u:ldn-n 
died  that  «\:r  industrial  -.ujtrcu;::!  \  iiiiL'.n  ••'•'  maiiMa;.. 
tr     arc  the  laws  ;i-iinM   the  ex;.!..il.i!ioti  ,  \    u- 


gate  the  ev:K  winch  l:.i\e  Mown  from  the  i;;irc^ 

and  the  indiscriminate  and  heedless  pursuit  of  purely  mater 


CHAPTER  XLVIII 
THE  IDEALS  OF  ORGANIZED  LABOR 

The  Ideals  of  Trade  Unionism.  The  Ideals  of  Anti-Unionists.  Feudal  Lords  and 
"Loyalty."  The  Father  of  his  Workmen.  Paternalism  versus  Fraternalism.  The  Ideal 
of  Free  Collective  Contract.  The  Ideal  of  Better  Conditions  and  Better  Men.  Trade 
Unionism  and  "Wage  Slavery."  Trade  Unionism  and  the  Wage  Contract.  Content- 
ment versus  Progress.  What  Unionism  Stands  for. 
l 

r  I^HE  average  man,  whether  or  not  he  belong  to  a  labor  organization,  has 
*  at  the  bottom  of  his  nature  a  certain  more  or  less  distinct  aspiration 
for  a  more  or  less  exalted  thing.  There  can  be  no  combination,  association, 
or  union  of  men  without  common  ideals ;  for  without  ideals  there  is  lacking 
the  internal  bond  that  carries  men  along  despite  the  temptation  to  pursue 
selfish  aims.  No  one  can  understand  trade  unionism  unless  he  has  some 
conception  of  its  fundamental  ideals. 

It  will  be  easier  to  comprehend  these  ideals  of  trade  unionism  if  we 
consider  for  a  moment  the  ideals  of  men  opposed  to  it.  The  conception  of 
many  people,  although  they  are  fewer  now  than  a  generation  or  two  ago,  is 
that  the  employer  is  a  man  of  a  different  class,  a  different  race,  one  may  al- 
most say,  a  different,  species  from  his  workmen.  In  the  eyes  of  these  people 
the  ideal  state  of  affairs  is  one  in  which  the  beneficent  employer  is  surrounded 
and  served  by  throngs  of  faithful  servants  called  wage  earners,  loyal  to  his 
interests,  protected  by  him,  and  grateful  for  the  bounties  which  he  in  his 
goodness  and  at  his  sole  discretion  bestows  upon  them.  Employers  fre- 
quently speak  as  though  two  or  three  dollars  a  day  were  enough  for  a  work- 
ingman,  although  they  themselves  may  be  spending  twenty  or  fifty  or  a  hun- 
dred dollars  a  day.  These  employers  talk  of  the  "loyalty"  of  some  of  their 
men  and  of  the  "disloyalty"  of  others,  thus  assuming  that  the  wage  earner 
is  bound  to  his  employer  by  ties  of  personal  allegiance,  instead  of  by  a  con- 

(412) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  413 

tractual  relation,  supposedly  l>ased  upon  the  interest  of  both  parties.  There 
is  something  feudal  in  the  manner  in  which  the  great  lords  of  industry  oc- 
casionally speak  of  disloyal  employees  on  strike.  They  seem  to  believe 
that  they  possess  what  is  almost  a  property  right  in  the  services  of  the  men 
engaged  by  them.  They  are  more  incensed  at  a  competitor  who  takes  away 
from  them  the  services  of  a  valued  employee  by  offering  him  a  higher  wage, 
than  is  the  striker  at  the  competition  of  a  non-union  man.  They  speak  as 
though  they  were  conferring  a  benefit  upon  a  man  by  letting  him  work  for 
them,  but  they  would  consider  the  world  topsy-turvy  if  the  workman  should 
for  a  moment  assert  that,  in  accepting  work,  he  was  conferring  an  even 
greater  advantage  upon  them. 

This  feudal  theory  of  a  high-lx)rn  or  high-placed  employer  "giving 
.work"  to  his  loyal  employees  finds  its  Ix^st  expression  in  the  attitude  of  the 
employers  who  seek  to  be  fathers  to  their  workmen.  Many  well-mean- 
ing and  philanthropic  employers  have  done  admirable  service  in  pro- 
viding their  employees  with  reasonable  or  sometimes  excellent  accommo- 
dations, with  comforts,  with  small  privileges,  with  op|*>rtur.ities  to  improve 
their  minds,  and  with  many  other  advantages.  Trade  unionists,  whatever 
their  attitude  toward  employers  in  general,  must  hail  with  pleasure  any 
manifestation  of  this  spirit  or  any  act  of  generosity  or  justice  UJNIU  the  part 
of  well-meaning  employers.  The  ideal  of  trade  unionism.  howc\er.  i-  uo» 
a  state  of  affairs  in  which  the  employer  is  a  father  to  his  workmen.  I  he 
time  has  gone  by  for  any  wholesale  reversion  to  tins  plan.  I. very  day  tin- 
employer  is  Ixnng  separated  further  and  further  from  his  worKmoi.  and  |HT- 
S'.nal  suj>ervision  and  personal  interest  in  the  w  el  tare  of  empires  arc  In- 
coming less  possible.  As  soon  as  the  generous  einpl-  yrr  capitah/o>  his 
establishment  or  sells  out  to  the  trust,  the  day  of  i'a\ots  and  Uiu-liis  j,  j,rac 
til-ally  over.  While  trade  unionists  do  not  oppose,  but  actually  i'.i\«r.  such 
welfare  work,  if  not  intended  to  undermine  ti:c  union  and  destroy  the  indc 
pcudencc  of  the  workers,  they  fail  to  |'md  in  it  e\cn  a  teiujH.rary  solution 
of  the  lalx»r  problem.  It  would  m-t  l>c  p  '---.Me  to  re  introduce  th<-  paternal 
ii>m  of  the  past,  and.  c.en  if  possible,  it  \."nH  not  l>c  desirable,  since  the 


414  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

ability  to  confer  favors  brings  with  it  also  the  opportunity  to  vent  spite  or 
to  discriminate. 

Trade  unionism  does  not  stand  for  paternalism  of  the  employer,  but 
for  a  broad,  all-inclusive,  self-forgetting  fraternalism  of  all  workers.  It 
does  not  stand  for  the  "loyalty"  of  the  worker  to  his  employer,  but  for  a 
fair  reciprocal  contract  between  these  two  parties.  It  does  not  stand  for 
the  recognition  of  a  difference  in  species  between  employer  and  workman, 
or  for  a  spirit  of  blind,  silent  content  on  the  part  of  the  employee,  but  it  in- 
sists upon  the  substantial  equality  of  all  men  and  upon  the  right  of  the 
workers  to  secure  all  that  they  can  by  fair  and  reasonable  methods.  Fi- 
nally, it  does  not  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  employer  who  in  giving  work 
to  a  man  assumes  that  he  is  conferring  a  benefit  upon  him,  any  more  than 
it  stands  for  the  opposite  doctrine,  that  the  acceptance  of  work  confers  a 
favor  upon  the  employer.  The  ideal  of  trade  unionism  is  not  that  of  a 
superior  class  conferring  favors  upon  a.n  inferior,  not  one  of  "loyalty"  on 
the  one  side  and  generosity  upon  the  other,  but  the  ideal  of  two  separate, 
strong,  self-respecting  and  mutually  respecting  parties,  freely  contracting 
with  each  other,  and  with  no  limitation  upon  this  right  o'f  perfect  and  ab- 
solute freedom  of  contract,  save  that  which  a  community  in  its  wisdom  may 
determine  to  be  necessary  for  its  own  protection. 

In  the  ideals  of  trade  unionism,  the  freedom  of  contract  between  as- 
sociated workmen  and  associated  employers,  equal  in  position  and  in  oppor- 
tunity and  power  to  make  agreements,  is  but  a  means  or  a  step  to  a  higher 
and  better  ideal.  The  true  and  final  ideal  of  trade  unionism  is  the  elevation 
and  the  material  and  moral  improvement  of  the  working-man.  Trade 
unionism  is  essentially  optimistic.  It  realizes  the  progress  which  has  been 
made  and  bases  its  hope  of  future  advance  upon  past  improvement.  Trade 
unionists  do  not  adopt  the  logic  of  their  opponents,  that,  because  con- 
ditions are  better  than  formerly,  the  workingmen  should  be  satisfied, 
but  consider  the  progress  already  made  as  the  best  and  fullest  justification 
for  continued  efforts  to  improve  conditions.  Neither  does  trade  unionism 
accept  the  theory  of  a  certain  section  of  socialists,  who  believe  that  condi- 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  415 

tions  must  grow  worse  before  they  can  grow  better.  If  conditions  were 
first  to  grow  worse,  the  power  of  the  workingmen  to  Ix-tter  themselves 
would  ultimately  decrease,  and  they  would  be  so  depressed  and  degraded 
that  they  could  not  utilise  or  improve  any  concessions  made  to  thorn.  The 
theory  of  the  trade  unionist  is  that  things  must  improve  a  little  in  order  to 
improve  a  great  deal,  and  that  every  advance  in  the  condition  of  the  work- 
ingmen is  an  earnest  of  still  further  advance  in  the  future. 

Trade  unionism  is  not  based  upon  a  necessary  opposition  to  the  so- 
called  "wage  slavery"  of  the  present  time.  I)y  the  phrase  "wage  slavery" 
is  usually  meant  a  condition  of  practical  enslavement,  brought  about,  not 
by  legal,  but  by  economic  subjection,  a  slavery  enforced,  not  by  the  lash, 
but  by  pangs  of  hunger.  The  trade  umYnist  recogni/es  that  in  certain  sec- 
tions of  the  country  and  in  certain  industries  the  wage  earners.  esj)CciaHy 
women  and  children,  are  in  a  condition  so  debased  and  degraded,  and  are  so 
subject  to  oppression  and  exploitation,  that  it  practically  amounts  to  sla\- 
erv.  \Vhere  such  wage  slavery  exists,  houevcr.  trade  unionism  is  op 
posed  to  the  r-lavcry  as  such,  and  not  to  the  wages  as  such.  Trade  nnion- 
i.-m  is  not  irrevocahlv  committed  to  the  maintenance  of  the  wage  system. 
nor  is  it  irrevocably  committed  to  its  abolition.  It  demands  the  constant 
improvement  of  the  condition  of  the  uorlcingmen.  if  p->ssjl»le.  l.y  the  main 
tenanceof  the-  present  wage- system,  if  not  p^siblc.  by  its  ultimate  alv.lili.'ii. 

The  historv  of  trade  unioni-m  in  the  past  -ecnn  \<>  indicate  tli.it  by  tin 
aid  of  the  State  and  by  the  conceried  d'fors  «»f  \\-rkin-nien.  a  \a-t  and 
wide  spread  amelioration  of  their  condition  can  take  place  under  the  present 
No  limit.  !ioy,r\rr.  shorl  i  U-  set  \> ,  the  asp:rati- DS  <»« 


r.ipid.   ii-.crca.-e  in  the  rate  «  f  wagiv      '1  ;.e  - 

earn  wages  undreamed  of  fifty  years  ago,  and,  doubtless  liity  years  licncc 


416  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

they  will  earn  wages  in  comparison  with  which  the  present  rate  of  re- 
muneration is  a  beggarly  pittance.  The  existence  of  the  wage  system  does 
not  at  the  present  time  appear  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  very  high  rate 
of  remuneration  to  the  workingman.  Therefore,  trade  unionists  should 
endeavor  to  insure  a  more  equitable  distribution  of  the  products  o<f  industry, 
so  that  wages  may  still  continue  to  rise.  The  fact  that  the  remuneration 
of  the  most  highly  trained  and  successful  leaders  of  industry  is  frequently 
paid  in  the  form  of  salary  or  wages,  would  indicate  that  there  is  no  neces- 
sary connection  between  the  payment  of  the  workingmen  in  the  form  of  a 
weekly  or  monthly  stipend  and  a  low  rate  of  remuneration  or  a  low  stand- 
ard of  life.  Trade  unionism,  however,  is  not  absolutely  bound  up  with  the 
existence  or  maintenance  of  the  wage  system,  and  if  it  were  ultimately  to 
be  sho\vn  that  the  system  is  incompatible  with  a  high  standard  of  living  and 
a  full  development  of  the  capabilities  of  the  American  workingman,  the 
hosts  of  organized  labor  would  unite  in  an  effort  to  secure  its  abolition. 

The  advance  in  the  material,  condition  of  the  American  workingman, 
important  as  it  is,  is  still  not  so  essential  as  the  absolutely  vital  ideal  of  trade 
unionism — the  moral  and  intellectual  improvement  of  the  worker.  The  re- 
sult of  the  development  of  modern  industry  has  been  to  throw  ever  larger 
and  larger  classes  of  the  community  upon  the  necessity  of  earning  wages, 
and  a  greater  percentage  of  the  men  and  women  of  this  country  now  dq>end 
upon  \vages  than  at  any  previous  time.  The  migration  from  country  to 
city,  from  farm  to  factory,  increases  with  each  year  the  proportion  of  wage 
earners,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  at  some  future  date  a  large  propor- 
tion of  the  men  engaged  in  tilling  the  soil  will  be  actually,  if  not  legally,  in 
a  position  resembling  that  of  the  wage  earners  of  the  cities.  It  thus  be- 
comes imperative,  if  the  American  democracy  is  to  endure,  that  the  moral 
and  intellectual  improvement  of  these  masses  of  wage  earners  should  be 
raised  to  the  highest  possible  level.  Much  work  has  been  done  in  this  di- 
rection by  means  of  the  school  system  of  the  country,  by  means  of  our  cheap 
and  popular  newspapers,  by  means  of  the  admirable  postal  system  of  the 
United  States,  and  by  means,  lastly,  of  the  trade  union  movement.  The 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  417 

ideal  of  trade  unionism  is  to  become  an  ever  more  important  clement  in  the 
life  of  the  wage  earner,  and  by  means  of  its  activity  continually  to  raise  the 
standard  of  its  members.  This  has  already  l>een  done  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, but  in  the  future,  progress  will  be  more  rapid.  To  secure  this  advance, 
there  must  be  tin  increase  in  the  material  prosperity  of  the  \vorkingnien. 
High  thinking  is  not  incompatible  with  plain  living;  but  it  is  impossible, 
when  men  work  for  excessively  long  hours,  for  a  pittance  scarcely  sufficient 
to  maintain  their  families,  and  with  the  constant  fear  of  dismissal  and 
penury  staring  them  in  the  face,  that  they  develop  mentally  rr  morally. 
When  every  workingman  is  assured  of  his  ability  to  earn  fair  wages  under 
fair  living  conditions  and  is  guaranteed  against  the  possibility  of  undeserved 
indigence,  he  will  be  able  vastly  to  improve  his  intellectual  and  moral  l>eing. 

To  realize  these  ideals,  trade  unionism  builds  ujxm  the  foundation  of 
a  hopeful  discontent.  A  considerable  advance  in  wages  or  a  considerable 
reduction  in  the  hours  of  1al*>r  may  be  no  boon  if  the  extra  wages  and  the 
extra  leisure  can  not  IK*  employed  to  the  profit  and  sane  pleasure  <»f  the 
workingman.  and  the  wage  earner  cannot  and  should  not  secure  tlu-e  extra 
wages  or  this  extra  leisure  until  he  TI  •</;/. '.v  ///(•;;;,  and.  therclorc.  until  he  </(•- 
mands  them.  Our  public  schools  and  our  ncwspaj>ers  endeavor  constantly 
to  stimulate  the  wants  of  the  people,  and.  as  a  consc»picnce.  they  require 
more  wages  and  more  leisure  in  which  to  spend  lliein.  I  do  not  ire-iu  that 
this  progress  in  the  wants  and  need-  of  the  people  should  keep  \<  »  iir  in  a 
vance  of  the  possibility  of  satisfying  them,  or  that  the  \\orkiiuMiieu  -'i.-Hd 
demand  grand  pianos.  Turkish  rugs,  or  c\tra  «!ry  champagne.  \\  .t';c 
earners.  h"\vever.  should  constantlv  seek  to  \\iden  and  broaden  their  d<--uvs 
f<  r  material,  intellectual,  and  artistic  salisfacii"n-.  and  thus  m.-l-.c  IMC  \ 
living  in  the  highc-t  seiisc  of  the  phrase. 

Trade  unionism  stands   for  lilx-rly.  nptalitv.  and   tratcvirty:  :t   stands 
for  the  hln-rtv  of  \\ork  in^-mcn  t"  arrange  their  "V.  n  li\«-s  and  »••  contract 
jointly   for  the  manner  in  \\  Inch  ihey  shai!  U-  ^pmt   ni  nin.e  or  fa<-f 
stands  f-.r  equality,  not  f»f  v.ealth.  but  of  «.p|M  .rtunity.  and  it  ^t.inds  for  ir.i 
ternity,  complete  and  absolute. 


CHAPTER  XLIX 
ORGANIZED  LABOR  AND  PUBLIC  OPINION 

Necessity  for  Securing  Public  Favor.  Self-help  and  the  Help  of  the  Public.  Jus- 
tice and  Public  Opinion.  The  American  People  in  Sympathy.  Power  of  Public  Opin- 
ion. Necessity  of  Educating  the  Public.  Education  and  Agitation.  How  Public 
Opinion  has  veered  towards  Trade  Unionism.  The  Popular  Conception  of  Trade 
Unionism  in  the  Past  and  in  the  Present. 

THE  growth  of  trade  unionism  in  popular  favor  is  one  of  the  most  prom- 
ising indications  of  the  present  time.     It  is  of  vital  importance  to 
unionism  that  it  secure  the  approbation  of  the  public,  and  its  actions  should 
be  guided  by  the  desire  to  retain  and  augment  this  favor  through  a  just  and 
reasonable  attitude  toward  all  classes. 

No  one  can  help  the  workingman  unless  he  helps  himself.  If  the  wage 
earners  of  this  country  did  not  associate  themselves  into  trade  unions,  did 
not  defend  their  own  rights,  and  did  not  take  a  stand  against  aggression 
and  oppression,  it  is  improbable  that  other  classes  in  society  would  offer 
to  assist  them.  Indeed,  if  American  workingmen  were  so  supine,  so  nerve- 
less, so  lacking  in  courage  and  initiative  as  not  to  unite  for  purposes  of  de- 
fense and  justifiable  offense,  they  would  not  deserve  intercession  or  assist- 
ance. The  success  of  the  workmen,  therefore,  and  the  maintenance  of  their 
standards  of  living  and  liberty  must  depend  primarily  upon  their  own  ef- 
forts and  upon  their  faithful  allegiance  to  their  labor  organizations. 

In  the  conduct  of  trade  unions,  however,  it  is  essential  that  they  do 
what  is  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  community.  There  are  times  when  the 
American  workingman  can  exploit  the  employer,  just  as  there  are  times  and 
occasions  when  the  employer  can  exploit  the  workingman.  In  the  long  run, 
however,  such  exploitation  of  employers  or  such  unfairness  on  the  part  of 
workingmen  is  bound  to  alienate  public  sympathy  and  to  injure  the  cause. 
A  union  may  secure  a  temporary  advantage  by  a  breach  pf  contract,  but  if, 

(418) 


ORGAN'IZED    LABOR  4 If) 

is  is  inevitable,  it  thereby  destroys  public  sympathv.  the  temporary  gain  is 
offset  by  a  i>ernirinent  loss,  breaches  of  cc.ntract,  unjustiliable  restrictions 
upon  output,  or  needless  and  wanton  jurisdictional  contests  \\ill  affect  the 
public  unfavorably  and  will  completely  alienate  its  sympathies. 

Trade  unions  are  strong,  but  they  are  neither  invincible  nor  omniixv 
tent;  and  it  is  well  thai  they  are  not  so,  for  the  \\isdom  they  have  shown 
has  been  largely  due  to  the  ever-present  r.ecessity  of  appealing  to  the  public 
for  sympathy  and  support.  Far-sighted  leaders,  as  \\ell  as  the  great  mas- 
of  intelligent  unionists,  have  constantly  borne  in  mind  the  vital  importance 
of  squaring  trade  union  action  with  the  policy  and  purposes  of  the  public 
and  this  view  of  the  obligations  and  responsibilities  of  trade  unions  to  the 
public  should  ever  1>e  firmly  impressed  upon  any  members  who  might  tend 
to  forget  their  duty  to  the  communitv.  In  the  long  run.  the  success  or 
failure  of  tra.de  unions  v\ill  dej>cnd  nix  MI  the  intelligent  judgment  oi  the 
American  pe"j)'e.  That  judgment  iio\\  points  loan  nn<|ualilied  si.uvos  |.>r 
the  trade  union  movement.  The  public  is  in  svmpathy  with  the  chiet  dc- 
mands  of  the  organi/atioiis.  and  it  desires  for  the  \vorkingmcn  ot  this  onju- 
try  increased  wages,  shortened  hours,  protection  of  women  and  children, 
proper  sanitary  conditions,  education,  technical  and  ^ener.d.  and  everything 
which  makes  for  the  welfare  of  workingmen.  organi/ed  and  unorgnni/cd 
I'.ut  u|KMi  each  problem  as  it  arises,  upon  each  controversy  or  strike.  t!u- 
public  reserves  it^  opinion  and  passes  judgment  nj»on  the  parceul.ir  poi-it  a 
issue. 

The  for<-f  of  public  opinion  may  ),<•  exerted  ::i  -iuierent  d'trcti 
adverse  to  tin-  uui"ns.  .is  it   f(-.rmerly  \\a-  an«!  a-,  m  JIM:;-,   i  •  ••::i'r-.rs. 
is.  it  may  can-c  t!:e  p'is-;!-;e  of  laws  rc-t:  :rtir-:  I'M-;I-  :  (f       .  and 
them  iti  nrny  way*.       1  lie  law  is  an  in-ifi-iu-'1  «H-  used   v  •' 

great  effect,  either  t"  the  advantage  •  r  'he  '  .  .tvt.ir-i-  • 

either   for  tlie  pr--.tert;":i  r.r  tlic   d.-  !•::!•  i-mr;i       In   me 

of    cfrM-r  rr      tiT    nvb'ir     T,\     '  ; ;  rr  •..      !1|,'    •"C:i''1t    ^  f    it-    ACt:\C 


sympathy  upon  one  «ide  or 
ing   from,   the  «-trike   fund, 


420  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

stances,  also,  the  force  of  public  opinion,  acting1  directly  through  the  news- 
papers and  other  channels  of  publicity,  has  forced  one  or  the  other  side  to 
submit,  or  has  compelled  both  to  reconcile  their  differences. 

One  of  the  chief  purposes  of  trade  unionism  is  to  appeal  constantly, 
directly,  and  openly  to  the  general  public.  The  mission  of  the  union, 
frankly  stated,  is  to  agitate.  The  labor  leader  is  and  should  be  an  "agi- 
tator" and  an  educator.  The  unions  of  this  country  must  educate  their 
members,  as  well  as  unorganized  workingmen,  to  a  proper  realization  of 
their  ideals  and  a  proper  method  of  securing  them;  and  they  must  always 
make  to  the  American  people  temperate  statements  of  those  demands,  and 
must  educate  the  people  to  a  point  where  they  will  endorse  them.  Through 
peaceable  and  progressive  agitation  and  education,  trade  unions  have  already 
accomplished  wonders.  Workingmen  have  learned  to  go  into  a  strike 
and  come  out  of  it  without  violence;  they  have  learned  to  hold  together 
through  thick  and  thin,  to  make  sacrifices,  to  obey  orders,  to  vote  on  their 
own  affairs,  to  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  and  to  abide  the  issue  of  an  in- 
dustrial conflict  in  peace  and  patience.  Workingmen  have  also  learned 
to  pay  their  contributions  regularly,  to  make  contracts  and  stand  by  them, 
to  be  fair  and  reasonable  in  their  attitude  toward  employers  and  toward 
non-union  men,  to  be  temperate  in  their  statements  and  equally  temperate 
in  their  demands.  They  have  learned,  as  well,  through  the  contact  afforded 
by  organization,  the  lesson  of  respect  for  the  wishes  of  other  members  and 
have  acquired  a  willingness  to  subordinate  themselves  for  the  good 
of  the  \vhole.  In  the  same  way  the  public  has  been  educated  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  purposes  of  organized  labor  and  to  an  appreciation 
of  the  value  of  organization.  There  was  a  time  in  the  history  of 
this  country  when  labor  organizations  were  proscribed  and  punished 
by  law,  when  the  right  to  strike  was  not  fully  conceded.  There  was 
a  time,  not  very  remote,  when  trade  unionists  were  regarded  as  dangerous 
revolutionaries,  when  the  peaceable  efforts  of  unions  were  looked  upon 
as  desperate  attempts  of  fanatics  violently  to  overthrow  all  govern- 
ment. Only  two  generations  ago  the  unions  were  denounced  as  enemies 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  421 

to  religion  and  morals,  and  during  even  the  last  fifty  years  the  stigma 
of  belonging  to  a  labor  union  has  only  slowly  been  changed  into  an 
honor.  The  public,  however,  has  now  been  educated  by  the  unions  to  a 
recognition  of  the  essential  merits  of  organization  and  to  an  appreciation 
of  the  wisdom  and  temperance  of  many  leaders,  as  well  as  of  the  rank  and 
file,  although  much  still  remains  to  Ixi  done  to  bring  to  the  public  a  realiz- 
ing sense  of  its  full  duty  toward  lalxDr  organizations. 

The  change  in  the  attitude  of  public  opinion  toward  trade  unionism 
is  traceable  in  large  measure  to  a  fundamental  revolution  in  the  thoughts 
of  the  people  with  regard  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  workingmen,  and 
to  a  change  in  the  current  theories  concerning  the  distribution «of  wealth. 
In  the  eighteenth  and  in  preceding  centuries  it  \\as  commonly  held  that 
low  wages  were  good,  and  high  wages  bad.  for  society.  When  wages  were 
high,  the  working-man,  it  was  l>elieved.  would  Ixcomc  lazy  and  would  not 
work;  when  wages  were  low.  he  would  be  obliged  to  work  continuously  in 
order  to  sustain  life.  S<x*iety  would  thus  progress  letter  when  wage's  wore 
low  and  the  price  of  fool.  high.  As  lung  as  society  fixed  its  eyes  ujv>n 
profits  and  not  uj)on  wages,  as  long  as  it  considered  wages  as  a  c«*t  which 
it  had  to  pay,  like  the  co<t  of  an  army  or  a  navy,  low  wages  continued  t<> 
be  held  g«x>d  and  any  organization  or  union  tending  to  improve  wages,  bad. 

In  the  half  century  from  1X17  to  alxmt  1^,7.  the  theoretical  »jrjx>siti<>n 
to  trade  unionism  took  a  different  form.  During  this  j>eriod  it  was  gener- 
ally assumed  that  wages  could  not  rise.  since  there  \\as  only  a  certain  fund 
or  amount  of  wages  to  U«  given  out  at  any  particular  tune,  and  n  some 
\\orkman  received  more,  other  workmen  v.onld  have  to  content  t!icniM-l\e* 
with  1C--.  It  \\as  U-lievcd  that  if  a  union  temjH»rarily  raised  wa-^cs  •  t':er 
workmen  v. ouM  seek  employment  in  the  trade,  and  \\age>  \\onld  a^ani  i.ill 
to  the  former  level,  \\hile.  if  by  am  means,  all  \\orl.meii  secured  a  tcmj**- 
rary  advance  in  \\ages.  the  birth  rate  \\onld  n  •<•  and  t!ie  increase  in  |*»pi:l:»- 
ti"ii  would  again  reduce  wages.  According  to  tin-  theory,  trade  unionism 
was  foolish,  if  noi  harmful,  and  uas.  therefore,  undescrx  ing  "t  the  supj»-»rl 
of  wise  and  intelligent  jx-ople. 


422  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

It  happened  in  this  instance,  however,  as  it  has  happened  many  times 
before  and  since,  that  the  wise  men  were  wrong  and  the  "foolish"  men  right. 
The  healthy  common  sense  of  the  unionist,  who  saw  the  advances  of  wages 
and  the  improved  conditions  and  did  not  fear  the  ghosts  in  the  economist's 
closet,  has  been  completely  vindicated  by  subsequent  events.  The  men 
who,  instead  of  taking  the  lead  in  the  movement  for  reform,  remained  in 
their  studies  and  proved  by  all  the  laws  of  logic  that  reform  was  impossible, 
have  at  last  recognized  that  the  trade  unionists  \vere  right.  The  theory 
of  limiting  wages  to  a  certain  pre-determined  part  of  a  preexisting  fund, 
has  been  overthrown  and  has  finally  been  relegated  to  the  lumber  room  of 
false  theories,  while  the  trade  unionists,  who  builded  even  better  than  they 
knew,  are  now7  acknowledged  to  have  been  in  advance  of  the.  wise  men  of 
their  .time.  During  the  last  forty  years,  therefore,  organizations  of  labor 
have  constanty  grown  in  popular  esteem.  The  unionists  have  worked  pa- 
tiently, while  others  predicted  their  failure.  They  have  paid  dues,  which, 
it  was  asserted,  was  an  unprofitable  expenditure  of  wealth ;  they  have  de- 
clared strikes,  a  thing  denounced  by  employers,  economists,  and  ecclesias- 
tics, as  both  useless  and  immoral;  they  have  slowly  worked  out  their  sal- 
vation and  have  justified  their  existence  by  what  they  have  accomplished. 

Even  at  the  present  time,  though  to  a  less  extent,  trade  unionism  meets 
with  the  same  sort  of  objections  as  it  encountered  fifty  or  seventy-five  years 
ago.  Just  as  it  has  been  compelled  to  fight  for  each  petty  increase  in  wages 
and  each  slight  reduction  in  hours,  recording  a  small  gain  here  and  a  small 
gain  there,  advancing  gradually  like  the  waters  of  a  slowly  rising  flood, 
so  it  has  been  compelled  to  contest  each  inch  of  ground  and  to  struggle  con- 
tinually, patiently,  and  painfully  toward  the  distant  goal  of  public  favor. 
Moreover,  just  as  the  material  advance  of  trade  unionism  is  marked  by 
occasional  setbacks,  so  the  gradual  clarifying  of  public  opinion  is  retarded 
by  occasional  recessions.  Even  now  organized  labor  must  meet  with 
opposing  ideals  held  by  society,  ideals  born  of  past  conditions  and  destined 
to  disappear,  abstract  ideals,  like  those  of  the  wage-fund  and  the  immutable 
law  of  supply  and  demand,  independent  of  human  action.  Some  of  these 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  423 

ideals,  such  as  the  uncontrolled  right  of  a  man  to  work,  the  right  of  a  nun 
to  run  his  own  business,  the  right  of  a  man  to  do  what  he  will  with  his  own, 
while  still  held  firmly  and  absolutely  by  good  and  sincere  men,  who  there- 
fore oppose  trade  unionism,  are  slowly  dissolving  and  disintegrating,  and 
before  long  will  cease  to  exist,  except  in  the  minds  of  men  who  are  in  their 
generation,  but  not  of  it. 

Just  as  trade  unionism  is  not  one  and  indivisible,  so  public  opinion  is 
not  one  and  indivisible.  There  are  many  separate  and  distinct  eddies  in 
the  great  stream  of  public  opinion,  and  there  arc  many  who  fail  to  realize 
the  direction  in  which  the  main  current  is  flowing.  Moreover,  public  opin- 
ion is  not  infallible,  just  as  trade  unionism  is  not  infallible.  There  are 
times  and  occasions,  especially  in  p/eriods  of  great  stress  and  excitement, 
when  the  voice  of  the  people  ceases  to  l>e  the  voice  of  (ie,-l.  (.Jem-rally,  the 
opinion  of  the  public,  though  broa  <  1  a  IK  1  s  \\eepi  ng^  is  ii  i  the  niain  ju  sj  jui  <  1 
f  aira  n  d_  reason ajjle .  Trade  unionism  should  adopt  the  j"'lc\.  an''  ";u'> 
scribe  to  the  principle,  of  attempting  to  follow  the  l»c>t  an  !  ri">t  enlight- 
ened public  opinion  of  the  day.  I  do  not  mean  that  trade  unionists  should 
surrender  any  of  the  fundamental  doctrine*  or  ideals  «-f  oi-^ani/cl  lalur 
to  what  may  l»e  but  a  pissing  whim  of  the  public,  but  broadly  speaking,  the 
organized  workingmcn  of  the  country  cannot  and  should  not  hope  for  any 
permanent  success  unless  their  actions  are  in  accord  \\ith  the  ideals  of  t'.ie 
American  ]>eople.  There  is  more  than  mere  j*-hcy  in  th;-.  «.b:-diencc  to  the 
popular  will.  The  wage  earners  of  the  country,  like  t'u-  n  nnf.irinrn  -. 
the  farmers,  the  professional  cla-^e-.  the  small  tra«lr-i:n-M.  .u«-  .  i  ..  par!  of 
society,  and  in  the  l«»ng  run,  no  one  of  tluNt*  cl.i-^-s  c-i'i  vn« -•<•<•  1  -.ir.H--- 
has  the  sup[x»rt.  approval,  and  sanction  of  the  \\h"le  totn-nnir.:  hr  \ 

fare  of  society  is  even  more  isnjMrtant  than  tl,.-  v/elt'.'r  •  of  oi .;  i-voJ 
men,  and  the  welfare  of  each  is  hound    i<;>    i;i    tin-  \\  el  tan- 
Trade  unionism  \\ill  pn>xf^r  as  it  re^pe'-J-  t;  <•  v .  ;!1  '  t  t'.e  JH- 
its  prosperity  will  conic  a  <  l«-arer  ree-.itr-.it ;• 
mane  public  of  the  j'i«tice  r»f  rt<-  ?«!ca!^  an-!  t!  e  - 


CHAPTER  L 
TRADE  UNIONISM  AND  THE  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

King  Log  and  King  Stork.  The  Democracy  of  the  Unions.  The  Local  Presi- 
dent. Walking  Delegates  and  Business  Agents.  Democracy  of  National  Unions 
Democracy  and  Efficiency.  The  Danger  of  Bossism.  The  Duty  to  Vote. 

DURING  the  anthracite  coal  strike  of  1902,  a  number  of  newspapers 
upbraided  me  for  headlong,  reckless  conduct,  and  spoke  as  though 
I  personally  had  called  out  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  men.  From 
a  perusal  of  these  journals,  one  would  imagine  that  I,  unaided,  or,  at  best, 
assisted  by  a  few  officials,  had  compelled  this  army  against  its  will  to  desist 
from  work. 

The  same  charge  is  made  in  a  scarcely  less  ridiculous  form  against  all 
trade  unions  and  their  officials.  The  critics  of  labor  organizations  pose  as 
kind  friends  seeking  to  place  their  protecting  cloak  about  the  poor  union 
workman,  oppressed  by  a  cruel  and  merciless  organization.  It  is  asserted 
that  the  employees  are  compelled  to  strike  against  their  will,  and  to  give  up 
their  work  and  the  bread  of  their  wives  and  children  at  the  whim  of  an  ir- 
responsible walking  delegate.  The  tyranny  of  the  employer,  it  is  claimed, 
is  as  nothing  to  the  tyranny  of  the  union  official  over  the  defenseless  worker 
enmeshed  in  the  trade  organization.  It  is  the  story  of  King  Log  and  King 
Stork,  a  transition  from  the  frying  pan  into  the  fire. 

One  must  have  lived  and  worked  in  a  trade  union  atmosphere  fully  to 
realize  how  baseless  are  these  statements,  which  imply  a  careless  or  a  wilful 
ignorance  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  trade  union  life.  The  labor  union 
in  the  United  States,  as  elsewhere,  rests  upon  the  firm  basis  of  democracy. 
It  secures  its  power  from  the  ungrudging  consent  of  the  governed,  and  its 
spirit  is  that  of  our  political  constitutions — the  spirit  of  a  broad  democracy. 
The  American  ideal  of  a  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for 

(424) 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  42$ 

the  people,  is  assured  and  secured  in  the  trade  union  world.  In  fact  the 
trade  union  government  is  even  more  democratic  than  the  jx>litical  organi- 
zation of  cur  cities  and  towns,  of  the  states,  or  of  the  nation.  There  is 
probably  no  organization  within  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States  which 
is  more  essentially  and  entirely  democratic  than  the  Anx'rican  trade  union. 

The  foundation  stone  of  the  trade  union  structure  is  the  local  union. 
The  government  of  these  local  bodies  is  extremely  democratic.  The  essence 
of  democratic  government  is  equality;  and  srxrially,  industrially,  and  i*>liti- 
cally,  the  members  of  local  unions  are  approximately  equal.  As  a  general 
rule,  all  who  attend  the  weekly,  fortnightly,  or  monthly  meetings  of  the 
unions  are  men  working  at  their  trade,  men  who  have  enjoyed  nlxwt  equal 
educational  opjxDrtunities  and  are  obtaining  approximately  equal  wages. 
The  president  of  such  a  local  union  is  a  man  who  also  works  at  hi-  trade 
and  who  devotes  his  time  gratuitously  to  the  welfare  of  the  organization; 
and  the  democratic  temper  of  the  union  is  manifested  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  restricts  the  power  of  even  this  trusted  official.  Notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  the  memlxrrs  of  the  union  are  usually  able  to  know  all  the  prin- 
cipal facts  in  connection  with  the  work  of  each  of  their  local  «  thcer-.  every 
precaution  is  taken  to  prevent  any  abuse  or  cxce-s  of  |»>\\er.  Thus,  most 
of  the  committees,  even  those  of  the  slightest  impirtance.  are  M-U-ctcd  by 
mcmlxTS  of  the  union,  rather  than  by  the  local  president,  and  the  principle 
of  rotation  in  office  is  commonly  in  force,  the  term  of  <>!iice  1  icing  "itc:i  n<  «t 
greater  than  six  months  or  one  year. 

The  same  is  true,  as  a  general  rule,  of  the  walking  delegate-.  -  r.  a-  lie 
is  more  pro|K.*rly  called,  the  business  agent.      The  walking  delegate  1 
more  maligned  than  any  other  official  in  indiistri.il  Inc.      He  \\.i-  called  t1  e 
walking  delegate,   not   Uran-e  he  preferred   walking  t-«  \ 
cause  in  the  olden  days  he  had  not  enmi-h  nx-my  \»  pay  c.ib  . -i 
and  was  obliged  to  \\alk  in-tcad  »t  ride        Ike  business  a^ei. 
man  v.  h<  si-  duties  arc-  s<>  manifold  that  he  c.»niii»t  v,  "tk  at 
il  is  who  meets  with  the  employer  and  attempt-  to  -ottic  toll--- 
anccs  or  maintenance  of  rules;   who  collects   dur-    fr-n 


426  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

union ;  secures  new  adherents,  and  obtains  work  for  the  unemployed.  The 
great  majority  of  men  of  this  sort  are  hard-working  and  perfectly  honest 
and  disinterested,  although  there  are  exceptions,  as  there  are  among  bankers 
or  lawyers.  "Where  a  business  agent  has  the  right  to  order  a  strike  and 
where  his  decision  is  practically  ultimate  and  final,  the  door  is  opened  to 
bribery  and  corruption ;  but  even  here  the  essentially  democratic  nature  of 
the  union  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  business  agent  with  unusual  powers 
is  ordinarily  chosen  for  a  short  term,  and  the  inefficient  or  dishonest  are 
gradually  weeded  out. 

The  local  unions  are  thus  as  democratic  as  it  is  possible  to  make  any 
body  of  men.  There  is  no  restriction  put  upon  the  voting  power  of  any 
union  man  or  woman,  and  in  some  unions  the  principle  goes  so  far  as  to 
permit  boys  to  have  a  vote  or,  at  least,  half  a  vote.  Even  in  these  "local 
meetings  the  man  of  ability  naturally  rises  to  the  top  and  exerts  a  domi- 
nating influence,  and  no  one  is  hindered  from  making  his  mark.  The 
American  principle  of  majority  rule  is  applied  rigorously,  and  upon  the 
whole  the  action  of  the  local  is  usually  a  clear  and  obvious  expression  of  the 
will  of  the  majority.  The  national  unions  are  almost  equally  democratic, 
although  the  arrangements  are  not  so  simple.  It  is  not  possible  for  all  of 
the  members  of  an  organization  like  the  Railway  Conductors  or  the  United 
Mine  Workers  to  get  together  and  to  vote  vh'a  i-occ  for  any  measure;  but 
the  attempt  is  made  to  attain  the  nearest  possible  approach  to  this.  The 
unions  have  adopted  the  principle  of  representation  which  has  been  worked 
out  by  the  political  parties.  The  national  conventions  of  the  unions,  con- 
sisting of  delegates  from  the  locals,  correspond  to  the  legislatures  of  New 
York,  Massachusetts,  or  any  other  American  state,  or  to  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  United  States.  The  various  local  bodies  send  their  del- 
egates or  representatives  to  the  conventions,  either  with  or  without  instruc- 
tions, and  the  vote  of  the  conventions  is  thus  the  vote  of  the  various  locals. 
The  representation  of  the  locals  is  sometimes  in  direct  proportion  to  the 
membership,  the  smaller  locals  have  a  larger  representation  than  their  mem- 
bers would  secure  to  them.  In  the  conventions,  the  majority  rules,  and  the 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  427 

vote  of  the  convention  represents  more  nearly  the  opinion  of  all  the  maulers 
of  the  union  than  does  the  vote  of  a  primary,  or  a  ballot  for  the  election 
of  governor  or  president.  The  union,  moreover,  has  gone  even  further  in 
an  approach  to  pure  democracy  than  have  the  states  of  the  American  nation. 
The  conventions,  which  are  held  in  most  unions  annually,  and  in  others 
every  second,  third,  fourth,  or  fifth  year,  are  relatively  losing  imjx>rtance, 
and  much  of  the  work  there  is  now  done  by  direct  vote  of  all  the  memlHTS 
of  the  union,  or,  in  other  words,  l>y  the  referendum.  In  many  unions,  no 
constitutional  amendment  can  l>e  adopted  \\ilhont  a  referendum  vote,  and 
many  of  the  organizations  elect  their  officers  by  referendum.  This  election 
or  legislation  by  popular  vote  does  away  with  much  of  the  danger  of  ma- 
chine control  and  insures  a  clear  expression  of  the  popular  will.  Legisla- 
tion may  be  proposed  and  nominations  made  by  a  local  or  a  numU-r  of  locals 
without  the  intermediation  of  representative's  in  convention.  In  >,»me 
unions  much  of  the  discussion  ami  voting  is  done  by  postal  card  or  letter, 
and  numerous  devices  ha\e  lx.-en  hit  upon  to  i-oinbine  the  greatest  amount 
of  freedom  '.faction  on  the  part  of  ..Ulcers  \\itii  the  highest  development  of 
the  democratic  principle. 

Xo  one  \\lio  lias  not  IK.VII  an  officer  of  a  union  can  appreciate  the 
extent  to  \\hich  the  vast  Ixxly  of  men.  nominally  under  his  control  and  di- 
rection, makes  its  \\ants  felt.  In  e\ery  crisis  men  !'•  »i v  '"  ''u-  "'••nt  and 
interpret  the  \\ishes  and  feelings  of  their  fell.  >\\  men.  but  in  the  trade  union, 
as  in  few  organi/ations  in  society,  the  real  movement  is  that  «>t  the  threat 
mass,  and  the  decision  tijun  im|M»rtant  subjects  is  that  »i  '.lie  mcinlwi  •  them- 
selves. It  is  \\ell  that  this  is  s. ..  In  this  rude  de:n  •' i  i<-\ .  m  this  deep  and 
abiding  jcaloii-y  <>i  ol'licials  and  of  insignia  ot  rank  •  i  "t  oisue, 
most  hojK-fnl  sit'ii  for  the  fut'ire  of  trade  untons. 

It  is  f|uite  probable  i!:.:t  at  the  tmu-  «i  the  miner-'  « •  •  :\  nition  ptool- 
ing  the  ant!ira'-itc  stnle  •  I    H^»J  a  0.11^1. Viable  tn  1 1  -\'.'.  t!ie  dcltrgatrs 

elected  to  det  I:. re  in  !a\  <-r  of  ..r  agairst  a  -ink.-,  \\eie  ••?  tin-  •  •;•  i  '';« li 

I  myself  he!-!      that  in  \n-\\   .,|  die  haid-isip- 
uix»!i  the  miners  and  tijn»n  the  <"'intry  at  large,  it  v  "tild  IK*  letter  t<H  ns  to 


428  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

endure  our  evils  for  a  time,  and,  if  they  still  remained  unredressed,  to>  strike 
at  a  later  period.  It  is  a  sign,  however,  of  the  democracy  of  trade  union- 
ism that  the  president  of  the  organization,  the  national  and  district  officials, 
and  even  the  representatives  in  the  convention,  were  powerless  to  refuse 
to  obey  the  clear  mandate  of  the  majority  of  workmen  as  expressed  by  a 
series  of  votes  in  the  various  locals.  The  mineworkers  of  the  whole  region, 
English,  Irish,  German,  Welsh,  Scotch,  Poles,  Russians,  Hungarians, 
Lithuanians,  and  members  of  a  dozen  nationalities,  had  voted  upon  this 
question,  each  man  registering  his  will,  each  man  having  a  vote  irrespec- 
tive of  race  or  language;  and  when  this  vote  was  finally  counted  and  crys- 
tallized into  instructions  to  the  delegates,  there  was  no  power  within  the 
union  to  prevent  its  taking  effect. 

In  some  cases  the  effect  of  these  extremely  democratic  principles  is  to 
detract  from  the  strength  of  the  action  of  the  union  and  to  bestow  power 
upon  weak  and  irresponsible  men ;  but  on  the  whole  the  power  of  the  union 
over  its  officials  is  exerted  for  good,  and  acts  as  a  check  against  the  grosser 
forms  of  dishonesty  and  incapacity.  A  trade  union  leader  notoriously 
corrupt  cannot  maintain  his  position  as  easily  as  in  the  political  world. 
Even  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  a  city  may  be  held  in  subjection 
by  a  well-organized  but  corrupt  minority;  but  in  a  union  the  disaffection 
of  even  a  minority  will  cause  a  split  which  will  immeasurably  weaken  the 
organization  and  loosen  the  hold  of  the  officers.  The  democratic  spirit  of 
the  organization  is  strengthened  by  the  substantial  equality  of  all  its  mem- 
bers and  by  the  ability  of  a  minority  to  secede  from  the  union  if  conditions 
become  unbearable.  The  controlling  powers  in  a  state  can  generally  exer- 
cise through  taxation  and  the  law  compulsion  over  all  persons  in  the  state, 
but  even  a  majority  in  a  union  would  find  it  difficult  to  exert  compulsion 
upon  a  strong,  determined,  and  disaffected  minority.  The  government  of 
a  trade  union,  therefore,  must  constantly  receive  the  sanction  o<f  practically 
all  of  its  members.  The  resulting  democracy  is  occasionally  a  hindrance 
to  rapid  and  effective  action  on  the  part  of  the  officers,  but.it  precludes  like- 
wise the  possibility  of  a  minority  of  men  or  of  a  small  group  of  officials 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  429 

holding  and  keeping  out  of  work  or  at  work  a  majority  of  the  members  of 
an  organization. 

The  democratic  spirit  of  the  trade  union,  while  showing  itself  most 
clearly  in  the  local  unions,  is  found  in  every  part  of  the  organization  up  to 
the  office  of  president.  The  majority  of  officials  of  trade  unions  receive 
salaries  which  are  much  smaller  than  those  paid  for  like  abilities  in  the 
business  world,  and  the  method  of  life  of  many  trade  union  leaders  is  not 
fundamentally  different  from  that  of  their  constituents  in  the  mine  and  at 
the  forge  and  bench.  Xo  union  official  can  prevent  or  seek  to  prevent  free 
access  to  his  person  by  any  memlx-r  of  the  union,  and  an  official  of  a  union, 
even  if  he  had  the  means,  would  not  maintain  a  standard  of  li\ing  which 
would  tend  to  separate  him  in  thought  and  feeling  from  the  men  over  whom 
he  is  placed.  In  the  political  world  the  old-time  democratic  simplicity  has 
largely  worn  away,  and  the  President  of  the  t'nited  States  <>r  the  Governor 
of  a  state  can  no  longer  maintain  the  simple  manners  of  the  days  of  Jef- 
ferson. The  president  of  a  labor  organization,  however,  even  though  the 
memlKrrs  of  his  union — with  their  families — numl>cr  a  million.  must  com- 
bine with  an  executive  ability,  which  \\ill  enable  him  1<>  perform  the  thou- 
sand and  one  duties  of  his  office,  the  willingness  to  give  a  res|K.'Ctful  hearing 
at  all  times  to  any  individual  unionist. 

There  exists  in  the  trade  union  world,  as  in  the  jH.litical  \\orld.  tin -ugh 
by  no  mcan>  to  the  same  extent,  a  certain  danger  «>f  the  building  up  ot  in- 
side rings  and  the  creation  of  a  IH>S>  system.      This  danger  i»  not  mimed 
ate  or  imminent,  but  even  as  a  remote  (visibility,  n  merits  the  th<»tightlul 
consideration  of  unionists.      At   the  present    time  <Mir    jN»htical    system    i- 
ti «reat rued  by  the  existence  of  rings  securing  their  |».,\n   b\   HUMUS  .if  prey 
in.'  upon,  or  being  bribed  by.   large  c<  >r\t>  •  rations    .",},\   ir«  n\  mr  c-  «nli;ict  -. 
f.-f.  .tr>.  or  direct   gill-   It-  in  the  money  of  the  rit\    •  i      t.ite.       It   is  essenti. 
t'i   the   <Ymo<  r.ttic    spirit    and    continued    J:.-;«TI!\    <       laU-r   «»rg.im 
that   no  such  state  of  affairs  U-  jKinntte.',  in  tin    t;."lc-  un:  lure 

are  main   rens. ,p.s  \\liy  the  danger  is  mm  h  smaller  t    .m  r.i  Mr  |"'.i 
In  the  first  place,  there  is  a^  ;i  nile  r.»  me.ms  ,-i  ..^-i.iiig 


430  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

willing  majority  of  unionists.  Even  a  respectable  minority  of  working- 
men  could,  by  secession  from  a  boss-ridden  union,  utterly  destroy  it,  and 
thus  end  the  power  of  an  unscrupulous  dictator.  A  trade  union  "boss," 
moreover,  would  not  have  the  powrer  which  a  political  boss  has,  of  using  the 
entire  machinery  of  a  state  for  enforcing  his  demands.  The  essential  equal- 
ity of  the  members  of  a  trade  union,  and,  further,  the  comparative  absence 
of  conflicting  desires  and  ideals,  would  not1  be  favorable  to  the  tyranny  of 
a  boss,  which  usually  represents  the  subjection  of  certain  classes  in  society 
to  the  rule  and  dictation  of  others. 

Notwithstanding  the  remote  possibility  of  bossism  in  the  trade  union 
movement,  however,  no  effort  should  be  neglected  to  make  the  assurance 
of  perfect  freedom,  democracy,  and  autonomy  within  the  union  doubly 
sure.  By  this  I  do  not  mean  that  power  should  not  be  vested  in  the  hands 
of  a  few  men,  since  this  is  necessary  to  energetic  and  successful  action,  es- 
pecially in  times  of  crises  or  emergencies;  but  the  machinery  of  the  union 
should  be  of  such  a  nature  that  the  fullest  publicity  may  be  given  to  the 
acts  of  its  officers,  or  at  all  events  such  acts  should  be  subject  to  review  by 
officials  independently  elected.  Wherever  possible,  matters  of  great  mo- 
ment and  importance — unless  they  involve  special  and  technical  knowledge 
— should  be  referred  to  the  vote  of  the  members.  The  referendum  should 
be  extended  as  far  as  practicable,  in  order  to  allow  a  constant  expression 
of  the  will  of  each  individual  member.  Finally  and  above  all,  every  in- 
dividual member  of  every  trade  union  should  on  every  possible  occasion 
register  his  vote.  The  prosperity  and  good  government  of  all  institutions 
depend  upon'  the  intelligent  interest  of  all  members.  The  non-attendance 
of  union  members  at  trade  union  elections  is  as  dangerous  as  the  non- 
attendance  of  qualified  voters  at  the  polls,  or  at  the  primaries  of  the  political 
parties. 


CHAPTER  LI 
"THE   UNIVERSAL  VITAL  PROBLEM  OF  THE  WORLD" 

An  Army  of  Unionists.  What  Unionism  has  Done.  The  Future  of  Trade  Union- 
ism. Labor  Expensive  and  Effective.  The  Wage  Earner  of  Tomorrow.  Pleasure  in 
Work.  The  Treatment  of  the  Incapables.  Trade  Unionism  a  Phase  of  the  Organiza- 
tion of  Labor.  The  Universal  Vital  Problem  of  the  World. 

THERE  are  at  present  from  two  and  a  half  to  three  million  trade  unionists 
in  the  United  States.  These  men.  though  divided  according  to  trades 
or  industries,  are  united  by  more  or  less  common  ideals  and  aspirations  and 
are  struggling  towards  a  common  goal.  Hack  of  these  unionists  are  mil- 
lions of  other  \\orkingmen  more  or  less  in  sympathy  \\ith  the  unionists, 
and  hack  of  these  is  the  vast  working  jxtpulation  of  the  I  'nited  States. 

The  great  new  fact  of  American  labor  is  its  organi/atioii.  The  \vork- 
ingman  lias  risen  from  his  knees  and  n<>w  stands  i!|»>n  his  feet  :  he  has  joined 
\\ith  his  fellow-workmen,  and  has  obtained,  as  a  riidit  aii<!  u«t  as  a  pri\i 
lege.  higher  wages,  shorter  hours,  ami  better  conditions  of  life  and  laU-r. 
Finally,  through  the  trade  agreement,  he  has  ^ecurcd  the  n-M  to  IK:  c«»:;- 
stdted  as  to  the  conditions  under  which  his  \\<>rk  shall  IK*  carridl  "ii.  '1  he 
union  has  meant  an  improvement  in  the  manner  of  life  of  the  workman  and 
a  revolution  in  industry  from  autocratic  to  democratic  i^>\ eminent. 

In  the  future,  the  union  movement  \\ill  mean  even  more  than  at  presort 
Trade  unionism  in  the  I'nilcd  States  i>  still  m  its  infancy;    \merican  lab-i 
is  still  far  from  heing  oj-gani/ed.      In  the  futme.  as  m  tin-  p..  t.  l.dx.r  • 
ganixed  will  exert  itself  in  making  ]:'.'<>•  >r  e\per,si\e  and  eiti<  u-nt.      The  pi" 
gress  of  society  de|»cnd>  ujmn  ihis  dc-. el"pme:  t.      It  is    >nly  \\hrre  laU-r  i 
dear  and  the  pn^ltict  of  Ldx-r  eheaj)  tli.M  .»  !ii^h  st.i'o  i.f  « i\  ih/.-itmn  is  j--- 
sihle.      If  the  trade  union  nio\tment    i>  |>c-r:n:iuenlly  siuee-si'n' 
so  only  by  compelling  the  tonstanl  nivc:.t:.  M  ••!  aiij  :•»•.  «-d  mr.it :«.  and  mrt!i- 
ods  of  pr<j<luction  and  the  continual  ••!  laVi       Lii»--r  must  lie»  •  .me 


432  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

a  thing  too  valuable  to  be  wasted,  and  as  society  advances  wages  will  in- 
crease, hours  of  work  still  further  decrease,  and  the  most  elaborate  ma- 
chinery will  be  introduced  to  save  labor.  Trade  unionism  by  making  labor 
valuable  and  expensive  will  compel  employers  to  save  it  wherever  possible 
and  will  make  the  competition  among  workmen  one  of  efficiency  and  not  of 
I  Cheapness. 

There  is  no  limit  to  the  possibility  of  advance  in  this  direction.  With 
every  year,  the  productive  power  of  society  will  advance,  and  the  remunera- 
tion of  the  workman  will  increase.  Wages  will  rise  not  through  the  expro- 
priation of  the  capitalist  but  through  the  increase  in  production.  By  politi- 
cal action,  the  trade  unions  will  be  able  to  equalize  the  burdens  and  benefits 
of  government  and  will  be  able  to  lessen  the  power  O'f  monopoly  to  extort 
an  unfair  share  of  the  products  of  labor.  The  remuneration  of  labor  will 
increase  relatively  to  the  reward  of  capital,  and,  absolutely,  it  will  increase 
enormously.  Just  how  the  workingman  will  eventually  come  into  his  own 
is  a  question  which  trade  unionists  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  answer.  The 
first  steps  in  this  progress  are  clear, but  the  latter  part  o<f  the  journey  is  veiled 
in  the  obscurity  of  the  distant  future.  Whether  or  not  this  ideal  will  be 
attained  by  socialism  or  by  an  improvement  of  the  present  state  of  society, 
whether  it  will  be  secured  by  the  abrogation  or  by  the  elevation  of  the  wage 
contract,  is  a  problem  which  is  not  yet  ready  to  present  itself.  The  union- 
ist does  not  cross  bridges  until  he  reaches  them.  It  is  conceivable  that  the 
highest  attainable  form  of  society  may  be  reached  without  any  fundamental 
change  in  its  political  and  economic  structure.  The  wage  earner  of  to- 
morrow may  possess  a  comfortable  house,  ample  leisure,  an  excellent 
education,  a  high  social  position ;  he  may  be  a  man  of  culture  and  refinement, 
and  still  a  wage  earner.  The  productive  capacity  of  modern  society,  as  im- 
proved by  machinery  and  by  the  application  of  science,  is  almost  boundless, 
and  the  problem  of  providing  an  ample  revenue  for  all  members  of  society 
may  very  well  be  solved  in  the  future.  A  few  generations  ago  it  would 
have  seemed  ridiculous  for  bricklayers  to  secure  through  organization  a 
remuneration  of  sixty-five  cents  an  hour ;  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  within 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  433 

a  few  generations  the  skilled  workmen  will  through  their  unions  secure  a 
minimum  wage  equivalent  in  purchasing  power  to  several  dollars  per  hour 
in  the  currency  of  to-day.  Commodities  will  continue  to  become  cheaper 
and  labor  or  personal  sen-ice  dearer.  The  cheapness  of  things  and  the  dear- 
ness  of  men  are  the  goal  toward  which  trade  unionism  and  society  itself 
should  steer. 

\Yith  a  reduction  in  hours  and  an  increase  in  remuneration  of  lal*>r  the 
workingman  should  find  an  increased  pleasure  in  his  work.     The  distin- 
guishing cJ2a£a£tmsjic^of_niPdQni  life  is.  the  joy  of  service.     The  skilled 
workers  to  a  certain  extent,  and  in  much  greater  measure  the  professional 
classes,  ev«m  now  derive  more  pleasure  from  their  work  than  from  their  rec- 
reation.    The  employer  who  works  more  hours  per  day  than  any  man  in 
his  employ  obtains  a  zest  and  a  pleasure  from  his  work  greater  almost  than 
any  other  satisfaction  in  life.     It  may  easily  come  to  jxiss  that  with  the  pro 
gress  of  the  age  a  man  will  secure  through  trade  unionism  absolute  pleasure 
from  five  or  six  hours  of  work.     The  result  of  this  will  be  t<»  render  the 
recreation  of  such  a  man  saner,   Ixrtter,  and  nobler  tlrin   heretofore, 
workman  jaded  by  excessive  toil  will  seek  pleasure  in  the  mo^t  banal  «r 
degrading  amusements.     The  man,  whose  work  is  his  pleasure,  \\ill  make 
his  pleasure  his  work,  and  the  men  \\ill  have  a    life    outside    the    tactory 
Time   was    when    the    pursuit   of   arms    was    the   chief    concern    «>t    a    u.i 
lion.      The  time  will   also  pass  when   the  desire  "f   necessity    f<>r  earnm.: 
enough  to  subsist  upon  \\ill  be  the  chief  concern  of  the  jn-opK-  <>t  a  r<>'intr\ 
There  v.;».s  a  time  when  education  \\as  a  thing  to  U-  lYaro'.  v,  !u-n  cliiidrrr. 
crept  unwillinxlv  to  school  and  came  from  it  xla<il\.  '""  "  1N  n"u  'KV'  in'n" 
a  pleasure  even  to  the  smallest  of  little  children.      Tlnon-n  a  reduction  in 
the  hours  of  lalM.r,  an  impro\en:ent  in  factory  condition.  .MI  nuTr.iM-d  right 
to  share  in  the  control  of  his  lalx»r.  a  diminutjon  in  tin-  tVar  of  disrhargc  or 
dismissal,  and  a  lessening  of  the  (otn].M!-!.Mi  un-!rr  \' .  h;.  !i  nu-n  l.tb-'i-.  \\.ul. 
may  beo-mc  lr-s  onerous  an<l  l»e  con\n!i •<!  n:to  a  j'!«-.i 

I  do  not  believe,  as  many  set-in  to  do.  that  tlu 
of  men  will  with  increasing  civilization  U-o.tue  m-  re  artistic  and  more  m- 


434  ORGANIZED   LABOR 

dividual.  The  prosperity  of  society  and  of  the  wage-earning  class  is  de- 
pendent on,  and  conditioned  by,  not  an  increase  in  manual  skill,  but  by  an 
ever-growing  perfection  of  automatic  machinery.  If  men  are  to  be  re- 
leased from  the  tyranny  of  poverty,  if  they  are  to  be  relieved  from  ex- 
cessive toil  in  the  factory,  it  will  be  only  through  an  ever-increasing  perfec- 
tion of  production  upon  a  large  scale.  Only  through  the  machine  can  man 
hope  to  escape  from  the  machine,  only  through  the  perfection  of  the  iron 
man  can  the  man  of  flesh  and  blood  gain  his  full  freedom.  What  is  probable 
is  that  a  large  amount  of  the  leisure  of  society  will  be  devoted  to  the  produc- 
tion by  hand  of  things  of  beauty;  but  this  will  be  art,  not  industry.  The 
patrons  of  industry  in  the  future  will  not  be  the  wealthy  few,  but  the  com- 
fortable many. 

The  ideal  of  American  trade  unionism  must  be  to  uplift  even  the  un- 
skilled workingmen,  to  raise  the  standard  and  remuneration  oi  woman's 
work,  and  to  make  underpaid  toil  as  obsolete,  as  non-existent  as  slavery  or 
serfage.  The  ideal  of  the  American  working  class  must  .be  an  organiza- 
tion so  effective  that  even  the  poorest  and  weakest  of  men  and  women  may 
receive  a  reasonably  large  amount  of  the  pleasures  and  satisfactions  of  life. 
Those  who  cannot  attain  this  standard,  the  incapables,  the  men  and  women 
smitten  with  physical  disease,  with  mental  weakness,  with  moral  laxity,  or 
with  any  of  those  vices  which  sap  the  strength  and  weaken  the  fibre,  should 
be  supported  by  the  state  and  allowed  to  live  out  their  lives.  There  should 
be  for  the  incapables  a  charity  which  will  relieve,  but  not  dishonor,  a  charity 
that  shall  be  what  its  name  implies,  goodness  unmixed  with  moral  reproba- 
tion. The  conditions  will  not  then  be  as  they  are  to-day,  when  an  army 
of  blind,  halt,  and  lame,  of  imbeciles,  idiots,  and  drunkards,  of  diseased, 
beggars,  and  criminals  are  saddled,  unfed,  unclad,  unhoused,  upon  the  un- 
skilled workingmen,  almost  equally  unfed,  unclad,  and  unhoused.  At  the 
present  time  the  labor  of  men  and  women  unfit  to  engage  in  the  industrial 
combat  is  used  to  lower  the  wages  of  men  who  are  capable.  It  would  be 
cheaper  for  the  workingmen  of  this  country  themselves  to  assume  the  whole 
burden  of  supporting  the  incapables  of  society  by  direct  contribution  from 


ORGANIZED    LABOR  435 

their  wages,  than  continue  the  present  method  of  forcing  these  persons 
to  compete  with  unskilled  workmen,  just  as  oil  a  much  smaller  and  less  im- 
portant scale  the  prisoner  in  his  cell,  subsidized  by  his  crime,  is  allowed  to 
compete  with  free  labor. 

Trade  unionism  will  not  cease  when  conditions  are  improved.  On 
the  contrary,  the  higher  wages  liecome  and  the  more  humane  and  reasonable 
the  conditions  of  work,  the  greater  will  lx?come  the  need  of  trade  unions 
and  the  clearer  their  justification.  Trade  unionism  is  not  only  negative,  but 
positive.  It  is  a  weapon  for  defense,  and  also  an  instrument  for  further 
progress;  it  is  both  the  sword  and  the  plowshare.  Kven  if  oppression  by 
capitalists  were  to  vanish  from  the  earth,  the  need  for  continued  organiza- 
tion of  wurkingmcn  would  not  disappear. 

The  great  and  noble  aspirations  of  trade  unionism  should  not  blind 
its  adherents  to  the  problems  of  the  immediate  present  or  to  the  dillicultics 
in  the  uay.  One  must  keep  bis  feet  UJKII  the  ground,  though  his  eyes 
arc  upon  the  stars.  It  is  necessary  to  pursue  the  path  slowly  and  painlully. 
at  the  same  time  keeping  in  mind  the  ideals  uhich  \\i!l  IK-  ultimately  rcah/.- 
able.  It  has  been  said  that  society  progresses  only  by  crauhng  upon  its 
bellv.  Progress  is  always  slow  and  accompanied  with  great  o.st  in  tears 
and  blo«>:!.  Involution  is  long  and  life,  both  of  man  and  man's  institutions. 
short. 

There  will  I*.1  recc-sii.ns  and  progressions  of  the  trade  union  move- 
ment. like  the  ebb  and  l]"\\  of  the  tide.  The  mo\enieiu  \\  ;!!  U-  hdi»ol  on 
in  days  of  prosperity  an«i  retarded.  or  apparently  retarded,  in  the  ra\s  oj 
adversity.  although  the  mor.il  chastening  ami  the  hard  lessons  learnc.I  in  tin- 
period  of  adversity  co:Miln!e.  |K.-rha|rs.  the  v.iv:»iir  .«;;.!  truer  an.l  surer  p;<- 
••re.s  of  the  two.  There  ran  U-  no  d««ubt.  h"v.c\cr.  th.it  llie  movement  i» 

r*i 

onward  ;:r.d  upward.  'I  he  v.ork:iigii.:m  \\1:--  ••inr  rr.r.\K-d  U|«"ii  hi-  ku<rs 
is  r.o-A  i:v,n  Ins  feet,  and  tli-ugh  he  max  --:tVi  b-iltf-  ir.  Ihr  fuf.iiv  o 


e 


ciaul.      It   take,  gencratv.n-.  |.<  implant   .',i-nii>    in  the  l-.uman   bre.iM.   but 
once  implanted,  it  is  ineradicable. 


436  ORGANIZED    LABOR 

The  movement  called  the  trade  union  movement  is  not  a  thing  by  itself 
with  its  own  beginning  and  its  own  end,  but  a  step  in  a  long  development, 
which  began  many  thousands  of  years  ago  and  which  will  not  have  ended 
many  thousands  of  years  hence.  It  is  a  single  act  in  a  drama  as  long  as 
the  history  of  humanity  itself,  a  single  act  in  the  uplifting  of  the  human 
race.  We  are  told  that  man  rose  from  a  lower  scale  of  existence,  that  at 
a  certain  time  he  was  tapped  upon  the  forehead,  and  it  was  said,  "Let  there 
be  light."  There  was  a  gradual  rise  of  man  from  the  savage  to  the  bar- 
barian, from  the  barbarian  to  the  semi-civilized,  from  the  semi-civilized  to 
the  civilized  man.  Even  this  civilized  man  is  himself  merely  a  link  in  a  grad- 
ual evolution.  The  evolutionary  and  educational  forces  which  have  been  at 
work  for  thousands  of  years  have  not  spent  themselves,  but  will  continue, 
so  that  the  least  civilized  man  of  a  future  age  may  be  higher  in  the  scale 
than  the  noblest,  purest,  and  best  man  that  lives  to-day.  There  may  come 
a  time  when  the  generations  for  whom  we  are  struggling  will  look  upon 
us  as  barbarians,  but  little  removed  from  the  cave  dwellers  or  the  prehis- 
toric savages  who  ranged  the  dense  forests.  There  may  come  a  time  when 
labor  will  no  longer  be  degrading,  when  the  last  vestige  of  slavery  of  any 
sort  will  have  disappeared,  when  work  will  be  a  pleasure  and  an  honor  and 
an  ambition.  When  that  time  comes,  when  men  will  have  advanced  from, 
and  evolved  out  of,  the  present  degrading  conditions,  the  generations  to 
come  will  look  back  with  gratitude  and  approval  upon  the  institution  of 
trade  unionism,  which  has  contributed  and  will  have  contributed  so  much 
to  the  ultimate  goal  of  society,  the  ascent  of  man. 

"This,"  said  the  great  humane  philosopher,  Thomas  Carlyle,  "This 
that  they  call  the  Organization  of  Labour  is  the  Universal  Vital  Problem  of 
the  World." 


m 


University  of  California 

305  r£  N        n  REGI°NAL  LIBRARY  FACIUTY 
305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  .  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095  1388 
Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed 


